TR-102507 Muy Bueno EPRI Limpieza Mecanica

CONDENSER MICROBIOFOULING
CONTROL HANDBOOK
RP 2300-16
FINAL REPORT, OCTOBER 1993

TR-102507
Principal Investigators
J. K. Rice
J. Garey
Y. G. Mussalli
P. Puckorius
Edited by
Fourth Floor Databases, Inc.
261 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 423
Palo Alto, California 94301
Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
EPRI Project Managers

W. Micheletti
M. Miller
Waste & Water Management Program

Environment Division
10937752
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED
OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF
EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE
USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT
INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION,
APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
FOURTH FLOOR DATABASES, INC.

PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins
Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (510) 934-4212.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 1993 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
10937752
REPORT SUMMARY
Microbiofouling of condenser surfaces can substantially increase costs at electric power

plants. This handbook is a consolidated source of information to support decisions that
must be made to control microbiofouling.
Background
Microbiofouling−the growth of microbiological organisms such as bacterial slimes−is a
major cause of reduced heat transfer, decreased flow, and accelerated corrosion in
power plant condensers. Though chlorination is the conventional method for
controlling biofouling, environmental regulations may further limit the concentrations
of chlorine in plant discharges. Therefore, utilities may need to select other control
mechanisms or employ new biofouling control techniques that use chlorine more
effectively.
Objectives
• To provide a consolidated source of information on detecting, monitoring, and
controlling condenser microbiofouling.
• To present case studies that illustrate successes and problems with various
techniques under given operating conditions.
Approach
Experts in the field of microbiofouling relied on their experience and current literature
to summarize various aspects of the problem. The handbook they prepared underwent
vigorous reviews by others in the electric power industry.
Results
The handbook contains seven chapters on various aspects of controlling condenser
microbiofouling, including case studies, examples, and worksheets on calculating the
performance factor and heat rate. Subjects range from microbiofouling characteristics,
development, and growth to regulatory issues, detection and monitoring, costs of
biofouling, chemical treatment, and mechanical cleaning methods. A complete index
helps the user select appropriate sections of the handbook, and 46 figures along with 28
tables highlight key ideas for easy reference.
iii
10937752
EPRI Perspective
Utilities are becoming increasingly focused on reducing the costs of electricity
generation. An EPRI study once estimated that, for plants over 600 MW, loss of
availability due to condenser biological fouling averaged 3%, costing the industry $1.4
billion annually. Thus, effective maintenance of condenser cleanliness can result in
significant cost savings. This handbook deals only with microbiological fouling. A
related topic not covered is microbiologically influenced (or induced) corrosion (MIC),
discussed in EPRI reports NP-5580, Sourcebook for Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in
Nuclear Power Plants, and N P-6815-D, Detection and Control of Microbiologically Influenced
Corrosion. The other type of biofouling typically experienced at many power plants is
macrofouling by mussels, clams, barnacles, kelp, and weeds. The newest nemesis in this
category is the Zebra mussel, addressed in the Zebra Mussel Monitoring and Control Guide
(EPRI report TR-101782). Taken together, these EPRI documents will help utilities
establish an effective approach for total system biofouling control. As emphasized in
this handbook, however, each power plant site presents a unique situation. Thus, these
technical resources can only be used as guides for understanding the causes and
potential solutions to condenser biofouling control.
TR-102507
Interest Categories
Nuclear plant operations and maintenance
Fossil steam plant systems and performance
Fossil steam plant availability
Waste and water management
Keywords
Biofouling
Microbial corrosion
Condensers
Costs
Cleaning
Manuals
iv
10937752
ABSTRACT
This handbook is a unified source of information to support the decisions that must be
made to control microbiofouling. It is organized to help power plant engineers and
operators (1) understand the causes of biofouling and how this knowledge can be used
to develop an effective cleaning process, (2) move through the regulatory maze to find
the regulations applicable to their own plant, (3) monitor biofouling, including on-line,
off-line, direct, and indirect methods, (4) calculate the economic penalties for biofouling,
(5) evaluate various chemical control methods in terms of system design and operation,
biocontrol agents, specific restrictive environmental regulations, chemical application
methods, and safety and exposure for workers, (6) evaluate mechanical cleaning
methods, both on-line and off-line. Worksheets and examples are provided in many
sections to guide operators to a more solid understanding of their problems and
possible solutions. The handbook contains 46 figures, 28 tables, several case studies, and
a complete index to aid the user in selecting appropriate sections of the handbook to
read or review.
v
10937752
10937752
DEDICATION
This handbook is dedicated to the memory of William G. Characklis who wrote most of,
and co-edited, the landmark book titled Biofilms, and whose pioneering research
activities have guided much of the work in the area of condenser microbiological
fouling. Even in his absence, his vision will continue to guide research in this area for a
long time to come.
vii
10937752
10937752
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The quality of this handbook was greatly enhanced by the interest and cooperation of
many who reviewed it and offered help, guidance, and insightful comments. The
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) wishes to acknowledge the excellent
contribution of the following individuals:
David Morris, Southern Company Services

Jack Mattice, EPRI
Janet Williams and Kristy A.N. Bulleit, Hunton & Williams
Robert Grove, Southern California Edison
Bob DeHart, New England Power Service
Joe Johnson, TVA
John Tsou, EPRI
We would like to thank the organizations who granted permission to use some of the
figures, tables, and photographs included in this handbook, especially Chubu
Electric/Sumitomo Light Metal, Taprogge, Water Services of America, and John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
ix
10937752
10937752
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1-1
References ............................................................................................................... 1-2
2 BIOFOULING CHARACTERISTICS, DEVELOPMENT, AND GROWTH ................ 2-1

Characteristics of Biofilms ........................................................................................ 2-1
Biofilm Formation and Growth .................................................................................. 2-1
Biological and Chemical Composition....................................................................... 2-4
Physical Characteristics............................................................................................ 2-5
Variables that Affect the Process.............................................................................. 2-5
Surface Conditions................................................................................................ 2-6
Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 2-6
Fluid Velocity......................................................................................................... 2-7
Water Temperature ............................................................................................... 2-7
Tube Material ........................................................................................................ 2-9
Understanding Biofilm Development and Growth to Aid Biofouling Control............ 2-10
Disinfection.......................................................................................................... 2-10
Cleaning Effectiveness........................................................................................ 2-10
Water Velocity ..................................................................................................... 2-10
Uniformity of the Biofilm ...................................................................................... 2-10
Summary ................................................................................................................ 2-11
References ............................................................................................................. 2-11
3 REGULATIONS AFFECTING MICROBIOFOULING CONTROL............................. 3-1

Background .............................................................................................................. 3-1
Amendments of 1972 ............................................................................................ 3-2
Clean Water Act of 1977 ....................................................................................... 3-2
Water Quality Act of 1987 ..................................................................................... 3-3
Regulation of Microbiofouling Control ....................................................................... 3-3
Technology-Based Discharge Limits ..................................................................... 3-4
xi
10937752
Water Quality-Based Discharge Limits.................................................................. 3-7
Worker Safety and Health Considerations.............................................................. 3-14
Glossary ................................................................................................................. 3-15
References ............................................................................................................. 3-16
4 MICROBIOFOULING DETECTION AND MONITORING ......................................... 4-1

Introduction............................................................................................................... 4-1
On-Line Direct Methods/Performance Calculations .................................................. 4-2
Condenser Cleanliness ......................................................................................... 4-7
Condenser Pressure (Steam-Side) ....................................................................... 4-8
Terminal Temperature Difference (TTD) ............................................................... 4-9
Heat Rate .............................................................................................................. 4-9
Condenser Pressure Drop................................................................................... 4-10
On-Line Indirect Methods ....................................................................................... 4-14
Sidestream Monitors ........................................................................................... 4-15
On-Line Condenser Tube Monitoring .................................................................. 4-17
Off-Line Methods .................................................................................................... 4-20
Visual Inspection ................................................................................................. 4-20
Removal and Analysis of Deposit Mass .............................................................. 4-20
Destructive Tube/Coupon Measurements ........................................................... 4-21
Interpreting the Results of Monitoring..................................................................... 4-21
Recent Developments ............................................................................................ 4-23
References ............................................................................................................. 4-26
5 COSTS OF BIOFOULING ........................................................................................ 5-1

Introduction............................................................................................................... 5-1
Unit Performance Degradation ................................................................................. 5-1
Heat Rate Penalty ................................................................................................. 5-2
Pump Power Penalty............................................................................................. 5-8
Loss of Unit Availability ....................................................................................... 5-12
Replacement Power Costs ..................................................................................... 5-13
Unscheduled Outage Costs ................................................................................ 5-16
Improving Cost Estimates ................................................................................... 5-18
References ............................................................................................................. 5-19
6 CHEMICAL TREATMENT ........................................................................................ 6-1
xii
10937752
Introduction............................................................................................................... 6-1
Cooling System Design Influence ............................................................................. 6-1
Basic Biofouling Control............................................................................................ 6-2
General Application and Delivery Methods............................................................... 6-4
Oxidizing Biocides .................................................................................................... 6-5
Chlorine-Based Oxidizing Biocides ....................................................................... 6-6
Chlorine Dioxide.................................................................................................. 6-15
Bromine-Based Oxidizing Biocides ..................................................................... 6-16
Monitoring Methods for Oxidants ........................................................................ 6-18
Choosing and Using Biocide Chemicals.............................................................. 6-20
Dehalogenation (Dechlorination)......................................................................... 6-21
Nonoxidizing Biocides............................................................................................. 6-21
Application Methods............................................................................................ 6-23
Dosage/Duration/Frequency ............................................................................... 6-23
Cost-Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 6-25
Monitoring Methods............................................................................................. 6-25
Case Histories ........................................................................................................ 6-25
Case History #1: Sodium Hypochlorite Alone...................................................... 6-25
Case History #2: Sodium Hypochlorite and Sodium Bromide ............................. 6-26
Case History #3: Nonoxidizing Biocide (30% "Quat").......................................... 6-28
Targeted Treatment and Targeted Chlorination...................................................... 6-29
Nontoxic Biocontrol Chemicals and Techniques..................................................... 6-29
Condenser Performance Test Facility ................................................................. 6-30
New Biocides ...................................................................................................... 6-31
References ............................................................................................................. 6-32
7 MECHANICAL CLEANING METHODS.................................................................... 7-1

On-Line Cleaning Techniques .................................................................................. 7-2
Ball Systems ......................................................................................................... 7-2
Brush and Cage Systems.................................................................................... 7-14
Costs................................................................................................................... 7-16
Experiences ........................................................................................................ 7-18
Off-Line Cleaning Techniques ................................................................................ 7-20
Cleaning Equipment ............................................................................................ 7-21
Costs................................................................................................................... 7-24
xiii
10937752
Waste Disposal ................................................................................................... 7-25
Advantages of Off-Line Systems......................................................................... 7-26
Disadvantages and Limitations of Off-Line Systems ........................................... 7-26
Mechanical/Chemical Combined Cleaning Techniques.......................................... 7-29
References ............................................................................................................. 7-30
A CALCULATING THE PERFORMANCE FACTOR-WORKSHEET ........................ A-1
B CALCULATING HEAT RATE ................................................................................. B-1
xiv
10937752
1
INTRODUCTION
The cost of microbiofouling is hard to quantify. Early surveys (in the late seventies and
early eighties) showed that 3% of the total loss of availability at fossil and nuclear
power plants was due to condenser problems, chiefly in the form of biofouling.1 That
percentage may have increased (due to tighter environmental regulations on the release
of control chemicals), decreased (due to better monitoring and management), stayed the
same, or been poorly estimated from the beginning. It is certain, however, that
biofouling increases cleaning costs and decreases heat transfer, which in turn causes a
rise in condenser back pressure. Biofouling also can cause microbiologically influenced
corrosion (MIC).
There are two main types of biofouling: macrofouling and microfouling. Macrofouling,
as the term implies, results from the growth or deposition of macroinvertebrates (such
as mussels, barnacles, oysters, bryozoans, hydroids, sponges, or clams) in heat
exchangers. However, the focus of this handbook is microfouling, which is the growth
of microbiological organisms, such as bacterial slimes, in heat exchangers, primarily
condensers. The purpose of this handbook is to give power plant engineers a unified
source of information to support the decisions they must make to control
microbiofouling.
Susceptibility, monitoring, and the control of microbiofouling have both general and
site-specific implications. The same sequence of colonization and growth is typical of all
power plant cooling systems.
However, there are significant differences between once-through and recirculated

systems. Similarly, both monitoring and control depend on the plant's internal
configuration and its relationship with its environmental surroundings.
For these reasons, this handbook is organized to help power plant operators:
• understand the causes of microbiofouling (Chapter 2)
• identify the regulations applicable to their own plant (Chapter 3)
• determine a suitable way to monitor biofouling at the plant (Chapter 4)
• calculate the economic penalties for biofouling at their own plant (Chapter 5)
• evaluate various chemical cleaning methods (Chapter 6), and
1-1
10937752
Introduction
• evaluate mechanical cleaning methods, both on- and off-line (Chapter 7).
Worksheets and examples are provided in many sections to guide operators to a more
complete understanding of biofouling problems and possible solutions.
Clearly, no single problem in the water treatment process can be considered

independently of other operational issues. Similarly, solving microbiofouling problems
requires many of the same skills and expertise required in operating a plant, including
the contributions of Operating Engineers, Environmental Managers, and Permit
Managers. The reader is encouraged to develop a comprehensive control and treatment
program. That can be accomplished by first making use of all available resources as part
of a total system survey, and then considering the system as a whole.
References
D. Anson. Availability of Fossil-Fired Steam Power Plants. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power
Research Institute, June 1977. PP-422-SR.
Further Reading
W. G. Characklis. Biofilms. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
Detection and Control of MicrobiologicaIIy Influenced Corrosion. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric
Power Research Institute, 1986. NP-6815-D.
MICPro: Expert System for the Prediction of Microbially Influenced Corrosion. Palo Alto,
Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986. NP-6597.
Microbial Corrosion in Fossil-Fired Power Plants. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research
Institute, 1986. CS-5495.
Sourcebook for Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in Nuclear Power Plants. Palo Alto,
Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986. NP-5580.
A Study of MicrobioIogicalIy Influenced Corrosion in Nuclear Power Plants and a Practical

Guide for Countermeasures. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986. NP-
4582.
1-2
10937752
2
BIOFOULING CHARACTERISTICS, DEVELOPMENT,
AND GROWTH
Characteristics of Biofilms
Metal surfaces undergo chemical and biological changes when immersed in natural
waters. Chemical interaction between the metal's surface and water results in the
deposition of inorganic ions and the adsorption of dissolved organic substances. That
process leads to the formation of a conditioning film, approximately 50 nm in depth.
That film enables bacteria and diatoms to colonize. Those colonies produce an
extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) that encourages further growth of the biofilm.
Biofilms that form on the inside surfaces of condenser tubes will have an adverse effect
on heat transfer, flow, and ultimately plant performance. To understand how to control
biofilm fouling at an individual plant, the plant operator should know how biofilms
form and grow, factors that influence their growth, as well as the physical and chemical
characteristics of a mature biofilm.
Interrupting biofilm growth will not necessarily solve heat transfer problems. For
example, if the heat transfer surfaces continue to be covered with the dead biofilm and
an EPS layer, heat transfer will remain impeded. Also, if biofilm growth characteristics
are not taken into account, then insufficient cleanup of the biofilm can lead to rapid
regrowth.
Biofilm Formation and Growth
Biofilm development consists of six steps:2
1. conditioning
2. transport
3. attachment
4. growth
5. partial detachment
6. steady state
2-1
10937752
Biofouling Characteristics, Development, And Growth
These six steps can be categorized into three phases based on the change in thickness of
the biofilm:3
Phase 1 Lag or Induction Steps 1, 2, and 3 Little or no biofilm
Phase 2 Logarithmic Growth Step 4 Exponential growth in biofilm
Phase 3 Plateau Steps 5 and 6 Large quantity of biofilm,
with constant thickness
Any biofouling control method must move the system from Phase 3 or Phase 2 back
solidly into Phase 1. Because growth is explosive in Phase 2, cleaning that brings the
system back only to Phase 2 or maintains the system at Phase 2 will lead to fouling
again in a very short time. Intermittent flow or large velocity changes of the cooling
water do not change the steps in biofilm development, but they may change the rate of
growth at different times. Figure 2-1 shows the biofilm mass accumulation in each of
the three phases.
Figure 2-1
Typical progression of biofilm mass accumulation.
(Figure 2-1 is reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., from Biofilms, edited by William G.
Characklis and Kevin C. Marshall. © 1988, John Wiley & Sons)
Phase 1: Lag or Induction −Pioneer bacteria cannot adhere to a surface (such as the
interior of a condenser tube wall) until organic molecules are transported from the bulk
fluid (such as cooling water) to the substratum, where some of the organic molecules
adsorb, resulting in a "conditioned" substratum. These adherent materials also provide
nutrients for microorganisms that become lodged on the surface. Adsorption of an
organic conditioning film is very rapid compared to the other biofilm processes.
The microorganisms that become attached to the wall come in three waves. Rod-shaped
bacteria are the first; these produce an environment conducive to attachment by other
organisms. Bacteria of other shapes (stalked, budding, filamentous) follow. The third
wave is other microorganisms, such as protozoa and fungi. If protozoa are present in
the cooling water and join the biofilm, they can reduce the accumulation of other
2-2
10937752
organisms by feeding on them. Other debris, including the simple organic molecules
needed for bacteria nutrition, will continue to attach to the condenser tube walls during
this wave.4
Phase 2: Logarithmic growth − No serious thermal, friction, or corrosion problems

would result from the simple adhesion to metal surfaces of those few microorganisms
present in the cooling water. However, those nutrients provided by the cooling water
will allow the attached microorganisms to feed and multiply. Given sufficient nutrient
availability and a favorable surrounding temperature, bacteria can reproduce in 20
minutes to several hours. This exponential growth produces colonies of thousands of
cells in one or two days.5
These developing colonies produce an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) that

contains polysaccharides (sugars and starches) and proteins. This is the substrate of the
biofilm, and it remains on the heat exchanger tube walls even if all the bacteria die. The
EPS includes both capsule EPS and "free slimes." Capsule EPS surrounds each cell and
is tightly affixed to the cell. These capsules aid the cell wall in protecting the cell. The
capsule may be several times larger than the cell it surrounds. The other type of EPS,
"free slime," dissociates easily from the cell that produced it. This free slime layer helps
the cell .capture nutrients necessary for metabolism, growth, and reproduction.6 (See
Figure 2-2.)
2-3
10937752
Figure 2-2
Marine bacteria immersed in a copious slime film.
Phase 3: Plateau−Eventually, the biofilm grows thick enough to partially slough off into
the cooling-water stream. A steady-state or plateau phase is reached in which growth is
balanced by detachment, or "sloughing" caused by the shear stress of the flowing water.
Biological and Chemical Composition
Biofilms have two major components: microbial cells and EPS. A biofilm is composed of
87-99% water because the major EPS component, polysaccharides, contains many
hydrophilic sugar residues.7 The biofilm can be considered an organic polymer gel
containing living microorganisms within it. The gel has properties that influence the
transport of momentum, heat, and mass at the substratum. Changes in transport rates
will affect the performance of industrial equipment (decreasing heat transfer efficiency),
reduce the effectiveness of biocide treatment (by limiting the chemical effectiveness to
the biofilm/ cooling-water interface) and create unique niches within the biofilm for the
proliferation of a variety of microbial species.8 These species may include corrosion-
producing bacteria, that also will change the chemical makeup of the biofilm, usually by
2-4
10937752
producing acid. Additional information about corrosion-causing bacteria can be found

in a set of EPRI reports referenced at the end of Chapter 1.
Physical Characteristics
Biofilm thickness is an important characteristic in analyzing biofilm processes, because

thickness determines the diffusional distance, which must be known in order to
calculate fluid frictional resistance and heat transfer resistance. However, accurate
measurement of biofilm thickness is difficult. The biofilm thickness may vary
considerably over a given substratum due to irregular morphological features of the
biofilm. Variation in thickness also can be a function of biofilm age.9
Biofilm density can affect the ease of biofilm removal and the depth of biocide
penetration. Accurate measurement of biofilm mass density is directly related to
accurate thickness measurement. Biofilm mass densities have been reported as high10 as
105 kg/m3 and as low11 as 10 kg/m3. Within the biofilm, density can vary with depth.
Although a black deposit on condenser tube walls may look like biofilm, it might
actually be a manganese deposit, which produces a similar film. Precipitation of
manganese dioxide can also lead to pitting corrosion. Although biofilms and
manganese deposits look similar, biofilms can be removed more easily.12 Manganese
films themselves, however, are not always the result of inorganic deposition. In many
cases, the films are the direct result of bacterial action, particularly in fresh water.13,14,15
The bacteria on the surface of the pipe remove manganese from the water and oxidize
it, creating the deposit.
Variables that Affect the Process
Several factors are involved in the accumulation and development of biofilm, including:
(1) surface conditions, (2) water quality, (3) fluid velocity, (4) water temperature and (5)
tube alloy. (See Figure 2-3.)16 These factors can be put to use in controlling biofilms; if
ignored, they can thwart control efforts.
2-5
10937752
Figure 2-3
Factors that affect biofilm development.
Surface Conditions
Compared to other factors, initial surface conditions appear to have a minor effect on
biofilm formation. Roughness is the primary surface condition that might affect early
stages of biofilm growth. Observations to date suggest that the net cell accumulation
rate is greater on rougher surfaces, but this has not yet been quantified.17 The extent to
which surface roughness either increases or decreases biofilm formation may be limited
to the induction period. A 30-day test in sea water showed no difference in the rate of
biofouling between a rough and a smooth AL-6X tube.18
Water Quality
Water quality considerations include the presence of microorganisms and nutrients,

plus other factors, such as salinity. The planktonic bacteria and other microorganisms in
the water cannot produce biofilm without attachment and growth onto the tube wall;
however, a few of each species must be present in the water to attach and start the
biofilm. Disinfection or filtration (which is not practical in power plants due to volume
of flow) of intake water can prevent some biofilms from starting.
Microorganisms derive energy from three sources: light, inorganic or organic

compounds. The majority Of the microorganisms in a condenser biofilm use organic
compounds to fuel their reproduction. Consequently, the development of a biofilm is
directly influenced by the organic carbon (OC) content of the water. Biofilm starvation
occurs easily if OC is too low. However, even low levels of OC are adequate to support
biofilm development if this condition is coupled with high flow rates,19 thereby
2-6
10937752
maintaining a critical loading rate, or mass of OC per unit time per unit area available
(concentration x flow ÷ area). In one experiment, an increase in the water velocity from
0.92 to 1.92 m/s increased the rate of accumulation of biofilm, even when the growth
rate had been organic-nutrient-limited.20 Other experiments show that shear stress at
higher velocity can lead to a net decrease in biofouling with water velocities as low as
1.5 m/s.21
The loading rate of OC is not the only important factor. The quality or accessibility of
OC is critical as well. Organic carbon found in cellulose is much less accessible to the
bacteria than that in glucose. Similarly particulate OC is less useful to bacteria than
dissolved OC.22
In addition to OC, nitrogen, phosphorous and phosphates must be present. Deficits in

these nutrients sometimes inhibit biofilm development. For example, one study showed
that a carbon to nitrogen ratio of greater than 7:10 limited microbial growth (nitrogen-
limited).23 Similarly, lack of phosphorous is known to limit biofilm growth in Lake
Michigan during the summer (phosphorous-limited).24
Suspended solids in the water can add to the nutrients, though nutrients in suspended
solids are not usually as available as dissolved nutrients. Suspended solids also scour
the walls, increasing the shearing effect of water velocity on the steady-state thickness
of the biofilm. However, some suspended solids can deposit into the biofilm, adding to
the mass loading, and perhaps, to the difficulty in removing it.25 In one set of
experiments, clay particles adsorbed and attached to the biofilm, adding to its total
mass.26o
Fluid Velocity
Fluid velocity can have either a positive or a negative effect on biofilm development.
Adequate water flow brings organisms and nutrients to the condenser walls; high
velocity also increases detachment. Steady-state conditions are a balance between
nutrient loading and shear due to flow. Steady-state biofilm mass is usually lower in
high-velocity systems because detachment is increased.27 However, most condensers
are designed for operation at a specific maximum velocity. Therefore, velocity cannot be
raised beyond a certain point for fouling control, or the condenser will not achieve
optimum heat rejection.
Water Temperature
Biofouling typically increases during the summer months. It is easy to conclude that
increased water temperature causes this increased growth. While bacterial metabolism
and growth increase in higher temperatures, the summer effect may also be due to
increased nutrients in the larger volumes of cooling water. Many plants increase their
2-7
10937752
total cooling-water flowthrough in summer. The increase in biofouling rate and extent
due to increased water temperature is significant only when other factors, particularly
OC availability, are not limiting.28 Temperature increases between 15 and 40°C increase
the growth rate and thickness of biofilm in experiments; temperatures above 40°C tend
to impede growth (see Figures 2-4 and 2-5).29
Figure 2-4
Water temperature has a significant influence on biofilm accumulation as measured
by biofilm thickness.
2-8
10937752
Figure 2-5
Water temperature influences the log rate of biofilm accumulation in an
experimental flowing system. Shear stress was 1.6 N/m2 (150 rpm), and substrate
loading rate (glucose) ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 mg/m2h1.
Since water temperatures in a plant condenser or other heat exchanger rarely stay above
35°C for any significant amount of time, water temperature rise under normal field
conditions will usually increase biofilm growth.
Tube Material
Typical condenser tube alloy materials such as copper-nickel, titanium, stainless steel
and admiralty brass have been tested for their effect on biofilm formation. Speaking
strictly of biofouling, the materials rank as follows:30
1. Copper-nickel slowest biofouling
2. Brass
3. Titanium
4. Stainless steel fastest biofouling
These results are not surprising because copper is toxic to bacteria. Although copper-
nickel and brass slow biofouling, these materials may experience higher corrosion rates
so that the total heat rate transfer degradation due to corrosion plus biofouling may
actually be greater with these alloys. Also, copper corrosion can release copper ions into
the water, affecting the plant's ability to meet water quality standards. The regulatory
control of copper ions is discussed in Chapter 3, while Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the
effect of the condenser alloy on biofilm control strategy (both chemical and mechanical).
2-9
10937752
Like surface roughness, the impact of material selection is greatest during the induction
period. Once the biofilm is established and corrosion rates have decreased to steady-
state levels, the material is relatively unimportant.
Understanding Biofilm Development and Growth to Aid Biofouling Control
Disinfection
Once a biofilm is established, simply disinfecting the film will not resolve the problem.
This is because the polysaccharide-containing layer produced by the bacteria is actually
much bulkier than the bacteria alone. While disinfection kills the bacteria and prevents
their future reproduction, the EPS remains and continues to increase thermal and fluid
resistance as well as contributes to corrosion. Furthermore, once the disinfecting
chemical is gone, the nonliving EPS provides ideal conditions for the re-establishment
of living bacterial colonies.31
Cleaning Effectiveness
Because bacteria reproduce explosively in the growth phase, any effective cleaning
must take the system back to the induction phase. Cleaning that leaves substantial
bacteria or EPS attached to the condenser walls will last only a few days, perhaps only
hours. A thorough cleaning that moves the growth process back to the induction (wall-
conditioning/ attachment) phase will last much longer. (See Figure 2-1.)
Water Velocity
While faster water flow increases sloughing, it also supplies the biofilm with more
colonizing bacteria and nutrients. Occasional increases in the water flow rate are most
likely to increase detachment without significantly increasing biofilm growth.32 High
silt loadings can also increase the scouring action of the water. However, velocity can be
increased only to a certain point in field situations.
Uniformity of the Biofilm
A patchy biofilm detaches more easily than a full film, but patchy films encourage
certain types of corrosion (e.g., localized corrosion mechanisms that result from oxygen
gradients). Continuous films retard or prevent the diffusion of oxygen to the surface,
creating conditions favorable for anaerobic bacteria. These anaerobic bacteria can
increase both the biofouling mass and rate, as well as induce corrosion.33
2-10
10937752
Summary
Biofilm formation in condenser tubes occurs in six steps. Several factors affect the net
accumulation rate; the most important is the organic carbon available to provide energy
for bacteria growth.
Knowledge of biofilm formation factors can be used to develop an effective cleaning

process, such as
• taking the tube environment back to a "near-clean" condition (the induction phase)
rather than the logarithmic growth phase or
• removing the EPS (slime) produced by bacteria to eliminate the growth medium for
new colonies.
References
1. S.G. Gomez de Saravia, M. F. L. de Mele, and H. A. Videla. "An Assessment of the

Early Stages of Microfouling and Corrosion of 70:30 Copper-Nickel Alloy in the
Presence of Two Marine Bacteria." Biofouling, 1989, vol. 1, p. 213.
2. W.G. Characklis. Biofilms. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990, p. 195.
3. W.G. Characklis, J. D. Bryers, M. G. Trulear, and N. Zelver. "Biofouling Film

Development and Its Effects on Energy Losses: A Laboratory Study." Condenser
BiofouIing Control−Symposium Proceedings, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research
Institute, 1980, CS-1450, p. 56.
4. Characklis, BiofiIms, op. cit., pp. 195-231.
5. Ibid., p. 131.
6. W. Chow. "Condenser Biofouling Control: The State of the Art." In Proceedings:

Condenser Biofouling Control−State-of-the-Art Symposium, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric
Power Research Institute, November 1985. CS-4339, p. 2-35.
7. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., p. 109.
8. Ibid., p. 93.
9. Ibid., p. 131.
10. R. C. Hoehn and A. D. Ray. Journal of Water Pollution Control. Fed. 46, 2302, 1973.
2-11
10937752
11. W. G. Characklis. Biofilm Development and Destruction, Final Report, Palo Alto, Calif.:
Electric Power Research Institute, 1980. CS-1554.
12. L. Morris, L. Price, and E. L. Flock. "Manganese Deposits in Utility Condensers:

Experience Report." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control−State-of-the-Art
Symposium, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November 1985. CS-
4339, p. 6-27.
13. P. A. Tyler and K. E. Marshall. "Form and Function in Manganese-Oxidizing

Bacteria." Archiv fur Mikrobiologie, 56:344-353.
14. W. C. Ghiorse. "Biology of Iron- and Manganese-Depositing Bacteria." Annual Review

of Microbiology, 38:515-550, 1984.
15. E. Gregory and J. T. Staley. "Widespread Distribution of Ability to Oxidize

Manganese Among Freshwater Bacteria." Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
44(2):509-511, 1982.
16. W.G. Characklis, R. Bakke and A.-I. Yeh. "Microbial Fouling and Its 'Control: A
Phenomenological Approach." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control State-of-
the-Art Symposium, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November
1985, CS-4339, pp. 2-3.
17. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., pp. 219-220.
18. Ibid., p. 550.
19. Ibid., p. 554.
20. Ibid., p. 566.
21. Ibid., p. 566.
22. Ibid., p. 559.
23. T. R. Bott and M. Gunatillaka. "Nutrient Composition and Biofilm Thickness."

Fouling of Heat Exchanger Surfaces. R. W. Bryers and S.S. Cole, Eds., New York:
United Engineering Trustees, Inc., 1983, pp. 727-734.
24. D. Scavia and G. A. Laird. Limnol Oceanogr. 1987, pp. 32, 1017-1033.
26. Ibid., p. 588.
2-12
10937752
27. Ibid., p. 559.
28. Ibid., p. 569.
29. Ibid., pp. 575-576.
30. Ibid., p. 545.
31. Chow, op. cit., pp. 2-28 to 2-30.
33. S.C. Dexter. "fouling and Corrosion." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control
State-of-the-Art Symposium. Palo Alto, Calif: Electric Power Research Institute, 1985,
CS-4339, pp. 2-28 to 2-30.
2-13
10937752
10937752
3
REGULATIONS AFFECTING MICROBIOFOULING
CONTROL
Background
What has become the legal framework for the regulation of industrial wastewater
discharges, including those from power plants, had its beginnings over 40 years ago. In
1948, events were set in motion that eventually led to the present-day federal laws and
regulations on the use and discharge of biofouling control chemicals in power plant
cooling water systems. This chapter reviews some of the more significant laws and
amendments that shaped the current federal regulation of aqueous discharges, then
overviews the current requirements related to technology-based and water quality-
based discharge limitations.
The Water Pollution Control Act of 1984, designated as Public Law (PL) 80-845, marked
the first federal interest in establishing clean water programs. Under this act, the U.S.
Surgeon General was charged with the development of programs to eliminate or reduce
the pollution of interstate waters. Congress appropriated money to study, but not
regulate, the problem of industrial pollution in general, and recognized a need to
safeguard the rights of individual states in protecting water quality. Virtually no
enforcement powers were established with this first federal action.1
During the next two decades, however, public policy. concerning water pollution was
strengthened and expanded, largely because of the passage of four statutes:
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of 1956
• FWPCA Amendments of 1961
• Water Quality Act of 1965
• Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966
While these statutes primarily provided monetary assistance in the form of grants to
municipal dischargers, they began strengthening state regulatory roles. In addition,
those statutes involved industries in the preparation of comprehensive programs to
eliminate or reduce the pollution of interstate waters. Enforcement actions were
hampered by several factors, not the least of which were the lack of civil or criminal
penalties and the statutory requirement that courts consider the costs of eliminating the
3-1
10937752
Regulations Affecting Microbiofouling Control
pollution. One of the most significant developments, however, was the requirement in
the Water Quality Act of 1965 that states develop interstate water quality standards.2
Amid mounting public and Congressional frustration over the slow progress at
cleaning up the nation's waters, the first national permit program was put into place in
the years 1969-1971, through the resurrection of the Refuse Act of 1899. Through this
action, the Corps of Engineers was given the authority to issue discharge permits from
the national level although the nineteenth-century law had no provisions for water
quality criteria nor discharge standards on which to base the permits.3
Amendments of 1972
After months of Congressional debate, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 were enacted, despite Congress having to override a Presidential
veto. The new law solidified both the national objectives and the means to carry out an
ambitious program to restore the nation's waters. Among other things, the 1972 Act
required
• permits for point source discharges
• penalties for failing to obtain a permit
• establishment of specific effluent standards and water quality criteria
• identification and regulation of toxic discharges
•
establishment of an enforcement system, including civil and criminal penalties4
Further, a technology-forcing system was set up, with dischargers required to meet
limits established under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Program. Four levels of effluent limitations were established:
• best practicable technology (BPT) currently available, to be met by July 1, 19775
• best available technology (BAT) economically achievable, to be met by July 1, 19836
• best demonstrated control technology; for new sources, to be met immediately upon
discharging pollutants into navigable waters
• more stringent limits, referred to as water quality-based controls, if BAT and BPT
effluent limitations were insufficient to allow the receiving stream to meet water
quality criteria
Clean Water Act of 1977
The 1972 Act was amended with passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977, which greatly
strengthened requirements aimed at reducing toxic pollutants.7 EPA classifies
pollutants into three categories: priority, conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
3-2
10937752
One hundred twenty-nine pollutants were listed as priority pollutants. The list was
developed based on criteria such as the known occurrence of the pollutant in point
source effluents, in the aquatic environment, in fish, and in drinking water, and through
evaluations of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, bioaccumulation, and
persistence. Three of the 129 priority pollutants have subsequently been delisted.
To be listed as a conventional pollutant, a parameter must either be oxygen-demanding,

naturally occurring, biodegradable, or a primary focus of concern in wastewaters. Only
five parameters are presently considered conventional pollutants: Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), pH, Oil and Grease, and Fecal Coliform.
Nonconventional pollutants are any parameters which have not been previously
designated as either conventional or priority pollutants.
As amended in 1977, the Clean Water Act required, among other things, the attainment
of technology-based limitations by specific deadlines:
• BPT by July 1, 1977.
• BAT by July 1, 1984, for toxic pollutants.
• BCT (best conventional technology) for conventional pollutants by July 1, 1984.
• BAT by July 1, 1987, for "non-conventional" pollutants (which include chlorine)
Water Quality Act of 1987
The current regulatory scenario was largely completed when the Water Quality Act of
1987 was enacted. Deadlines for BAT, BCT, and new, more stringent, BPT guidelines
were extended. However, more emphasis was placed on the states responsibility to
identify those waters that did not satisfy toxic pollutant criteria due to point sources, as
well as to reduce those point source contributions of toxics and impose water quality-
based permit limitations.8
Regulation of Microbiofouling Control
Microbiofouling is controlled in three ways: (1) addition of chemicals to the cooling

water, (2) biocontrol paints and coatings, and (3) mechanical methods. Of these, the first
two can result in the discharge of chemicals or their by-products into a receiving water
body; therefore, they are regulated by the EPA.
The EPA and the states mandate three types of regulations governing the quality of
discharges: (1) technology based, (2) historically based effluent water quality, and (3)
receiving water quality based, derived from receiving water quality standards.
3-3
10937752
1. Technology-Based Regulations (such as best available technology):

In general these are species or compound specific numerical limits, either
concentration or mass per unit time. These limitations are based on the performance
of the best available technology on the particular category of effluent for a particular
industry. These limitations are typically the least restrictive limits that may be
imposed.
2. Historically Based Effluent Water Quality Standards:

These are usually chemical specific (for example, chlorine or benzene) regional or
statewide limits on the concentration of a discharged chemical. They have a
historical rather than a precise mathematical relation to stream quality. They
represent an amalgam of technological, water quality, social, political, and economic
considerations.
3. Receiving Water Quality-Based Standards:

These are directly related to the water quality requirements for the receiving water
body. They may be stated in terms of chemical-specific concentration units obtained
by a designated analytical methodology. For example, a limitation might be that
copper must not exceed 12µg/L, measured as a daily maximum by graphite furnace
atomic absorption (GFAA). Regulations may also be stated in terms of toxicity units
derived from a designated whole-effluent toxicity test (such as acute or chronic)
conducted on the discharge.
The EPA establishes effluent guidelines and water quality criteria. Most state regulatory
bodies use these guidelines and establish state water quality standards (which are
generally derived from the EPA's water quality criteria) as a basis for issuing discharge
permits. The states can also make guidelines and standards more restrictive if
appropriate. Because state enforcement standards differ, and some states do not have
individual standards but are regulated under the water quality criteria set by the EPA,
specific standards for all states cannot be listed here. (For additional information on
specific state standards, see the federal and state regulations volumes of the
Environment Reporter, published by Bureau of National Affairs, and available at state
law libraries, or the law libraries of major universities.)
Technology-Based Discharge Limits
Power plant discharges are currently regulated by the best available technology (BAT),
best conventional technology (BCT), or best practicable technology (BPT). These
limitations are either parameter-specific, covering parameters such as pH and total
suspended solids (TSS), or chemical species-specific, covering species such as total
residual chlorine (TRC) and total copper. Monitoring requirements are usually satisfied
by grab or composite sampling and analysis at weekly or monthly intervals. Some
discharge permits require continuous monitoring of TRC as a condition for allowing
continuous chlorination for macroinvertebrate control.
Oxidizing biocides (chlorine, bromine, ozone, chlorine dioxide) are frequently regulated
as a group in parallel fashion. Nonoxidizing biocides are not commonly used for
3-4
10937752
microbiofouling control in once-through cooling systems for reasons of cost and

toxicity. Their use in recirculated cooling systems is similarly limited, though to a lesser
extent. In some recirculated systems, it may be possible to discontinue blowdown for a
sufficient length of time to permit degradation of the biocide to levels acceptable for
discharge.
For chlorine, BAT effluent limitations (under which most plants are now governed) for
once-through cooling water (for a plant at or above 25 Mw) are 0.2 mg/L maximum
TRC.9 Further, TRC may not be discharged from any single generating unit for more
than two hours per day unless the discharger demonstrates to the permitting authority
that a longer discharge period is required for macroinvertebrate (macrofouling) control.
The BPT discharge limits for chlorination of once-through cooling systems are specified
in terms of free available chlorine (FAC) concentration during application: 0.5 mg/L
maximum FAC, and 0.2 mg/L average FAC.10 For plants with less than 25 MW total
capacity, the BAT effluent limitations are 0.5 mg/L maximum FAC, 0.2 mg/L average
FAC. No single unit may discharge FAC or TRC for more than two hours per day. No
more than one unit at a plant may discharge at the same time. For all plants with
cooling towers, the BAT limitation is the same as for BPT, 0.5 mg/L maximum FAC, 0.2
mg/L average FAC, no more than two hours per day per unit, with no more than one
unit discharging at a time. An exception may be made if the units in a particular
location cannot operate at or below this level of chlorination. However, the utility 'must
demonstrate to the EPA Regional Administrator or state, if that state has NPDES
permit-issuing authority, that additional chlorination is necessary.
Both of these regulations are concerned with the chlorine content at the point of
discharge from the plant. Usually, FAC is only a small fraction of TRC at the point of
discharge, so the BAT guidelines regulating total residual chlorine are far more
stringent than the BPT guidelines on free chlorine. The limitations for FAC and TRC (or
total residual oxidant [TRO] when bromine is used) are specified in EPA regulations11
and summarized in Table 3-1. Measurements are made by the amperometric method as
described in the Code of Federal Regulations Record.12
3-5
10937752
Table 3-1
Technology-Based Regulations for Chlorine
Level Discharge Time Limitations Exceptions to
of Limitations Covers on Discharge Regulations
Control
BPT 0.5 mg/L Once-through 2 hours per day Utility may be able to
maximum cooling per unit one unit demonstrate that
FAC; 0.2 systems per plant at a time units cannot operate
mg/L recirculated at or below required
average cooling level of chlorination
FAC system
blowdown
BAT 0.2 mg/L Once-through 2 hours per day Longer chlorination

maximum cooling per unit period may be
TRC systems; simultaneous allowed if
plant total multiunit macroinvertebrate
capacity > 25 chlorination control is required
MW permitted
To obtain a permit exemption to the standard discharge limitations, a chlorine
minimization study must adequately demonstrate that units cannot operate at or below
a mandated maximum level of chlorination. Chlorine minimization studies can be done
with:
• an operating unit at the power plant
• a sidestream test facility
Testing the operating unit is direct (the effectiveness of the treatment method is directly
indicated by the performance of the plant or other direct measures). However, there are
shortcomings. For example, .determining the lowest chlorine level that controls fouling
necessarily involves testing a lower concentration that does not control fouling. Such a
test is undesirable, in that an operating plant would experience a drop in performance
that could only be restored with off-line cleaning.
Another problem is time. It is very difficult to test more than a few regimes
simultaneously at a plant. Full-scale testing for a wide range of treatment conditions
and frequencies could, theoretically, take many years.
Therefore, sidestream minimization studies are more practical. Testing of several

treatment options can be done more quickly and less-than-effective treatment methods
will not affect the plant operation or availability. The pros and cons of various
3-6
10937752
methodologies for chlorine minimization studies are discussed in the proceedings of an

EPRI symposium.13
Water Quality-Based Discharge Limits
Chemical-Specific.
The second type of regulation that affects chlorine discharges is the criteria continuous
concentration (CCC) and the criteria maximum concentration (CMC)for TRC. These are
the EPA national water quality recommendations.14
• CCC is the highest four-day average instream concentration of a toxicant that cannot
be exceeded more frequently than once in three years, but at or below which
organisms can be exposed indefinitely without causing an unacceptable effect. The
CCC for chlorine is 11 µg/L TRC in receiving freshwaters, and 7.5 µg/L TRC in
receiving saltwaters outside of the mixing zone.
• CMC is the maximum one-hour average concentration above which organisms
cannot be exposed without causing unacceptable mortality. The CMC cannot be
exceeded more frequently than once in three years. The CMC for chlorine is 19 g/L
TRC, which generally is applicable in receiving freshwaters inside and outside of the
mixing zone, and 13 µg/L in receiving saltwaters.
Both of these criteria were developed from data on the effects of continuous exposure to
TRC, not intermittent exposure such as occurs with most chlorination of power plant
cooling water. To date, the CCC has not been adjusted for the intermittent chlorine
discharge that results from the two-hour limit at the effluent point. However, the EPA
has recognized the authority of the states to derive chlorine criteria specific to
intermittent chlorination. The EPA also has acknowledged the usefulness of data
obtained in an industry-sponsored study on the relative toxicity of continuous and
intermittent chlorination.15
Unlike the BAT and BPT limits, which generally must be measured directly at the
NPDES discharge point, the water quality-based limits generally consider receiving
water mixing characteristics. However, differences in acceptable dilution models can
affect the allowable discharge from power plants. For example, some regulators may
base limits of TRC discharge at the mixing-zone boundary solely on nonreactive
dilution; such an approach would not account for the consumption of residual chlorine
in the discharge due to the natural chlorine demand of the waters in the mixing zone.
One study describes the necessity of including such demand in mixing zone
calculations for marine outfalls,16 and a series of EPA plume dispersion models
discusses natural chlorine demand in mixing zones.17
3-7
10937752
For modeling the situation at the edge of the mixing zone, steady-state or dynamic
models are acceptable. For dynamic modeling, receiving water flow and discharge data
are required. Where these are not easily available, steady-state modeling is required.
Dynamic models generally will yield less stringent discharge requirements than steady-
state models, but they require more data, including site-specific stream-flow data for 10-
30 years or more.
Most water quality models were developed with an emphasis on the dynamics in the
water column and the eventual water column concentrations. Table 3-2 summarizes
models that may be used for predicting the fate and transport of toxicants and are
supported by EPA's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling.18 However, if sediment
criteria are developed and adopted as standards, it may be necessary to use different
models that predict concentrations in both receiving water and bed sediment.
Table 3-2
Toxicant Fate and Transport Models
Spatial
Model Environment Time Domain Domain Chemical
DYNTOX19 river dynamic far field, organic,
1-dimensional metal
EXAMS-II20 lake, river, steady-state, far field, organic
estuary quasi-dynamic 3-dimensional
WASP421 lake, river, steady-state, far field, organic
estuary dynamic 3-dimensional metal,
HSPF22 river steady-state far field, organic,
1 dimensional metal
SARAH223 river steady-state treatment organic
plant, organic
near field
2-dimensional
MINTEQA224 lake, river steady-state − metal
estuary
Since the procedures for calculating permit limits make certain statistical assumptions,
specifically that the discharge data have a log normal distribution, the utility may
discuss with the permit writer the use of procedures based on other
distributions−normal, for example−when the other is more appropriate.
Another set of regulations25 applies to the mixing zone itself. First, it must be
determined whether a mixing zone is allowed at a given site. (The EPA guidelines allow
this decision to be made at the state level.) Then, constraints within the mixing zone
must be satisfied before applying any limitation based on fully-mixed downstream
3-8
10937752
water quality standards. Water quality-based limits may also be derived from mixing
zone limitations when these are more restrictive than other criteria.
Lethal concentrations (values in excess of the CMC) are prohibited in the mixing zone.
Concentrations should be measured within a very short distance from the outfall during
low flow conditions for the receiving water (1Q10: lowest single-day flow in 10 years).
In this case, the most restrictive of the following conditions applies:
• The CMC should be met within 10% of the distance from the edge of the outfall
structure to the edge of the regulatory mixing zone, in any spatial direction.
• The CMC should be met within a distance 50 times the discharge length scale in any
spatial direction.
• The CMC should be met within a distance of five times the local water depth in any
horizontal direction from any discharge outlet (at mixing zone design conditions;
e.g., low-flow for rivers). This discourages locating the discharge outlet in shallow
environments or close to shore, which would result in significant surface and bottom
concentrations.
In each of these cases, plume models approved by the EPA must be used to predict
mixing. The outcome of these calculations will determine the level of discharge allowed.
The permit writer will be calculating (1) whether a water quality-based permit limit for
chlorine is necessary, which will depend on whether the existing discharge is causing
an excursion and, if so, (2) what the permit limits should be. It is possible that the
permit writer may not allow chlorine demand to be taken into account in either
calculation.
Worksheet.
The following worksheet shows a step-by-step calculation to determine whether chlorine
applied at a given rate will meet effluent regulations at the boundary of the mixing zone.
To predict the amount of TRC in the water at the edge of the mixing zone, and to see if
it meets the regulatory requirement, we need to know the following values:
item a) Application rate of chlorine at the main condenser (µg/L FAC)− for
example, 800 µg/L
item b) Mixing zone limitation requirements: TRC concentration at the
boundary of the mixing zone (µg/L TRC)− for example, 11 µg/L
item c) FAC concentration discharge at the condenser outlet (µg/L FAC)−
for example, 50 µg/L
item d) CRC concentration discharge at the condenser outlet (µg/L CRC)−
for example, 150 µg/L
3-9
10937752
item e) Condenser flow rate (ft3/s)− for example, 445 ft3/s (FAC demand
(river)) at discharge conditions (µg/L FAC)− for example, 750 µg/L
item f) Free available 30-second chlorine demand of the river
item g) Combined residual 30-second chlorine demand of the river (CRC
demand (river)) at discharge conditions (µg/L CRC)− for example,
20 µg/l- 7Q10 river flow (ft3/s)− for example, 2200 ft3/s
item h) 7Q10 river flow (ft3/s)− for example, 2200 ft3/s
Using the above items, we can calculate the following quantities:

item j) TRC concentration at the edge of the mixing zone (µg/L TRC)
item k) FAC concentration at the edge of the mixing zone (µg/L TRC)
Make the following assumptions:
1. River water passing through the mixing zone and condenser water are fully mixed
at the mixing zone boundary.
2. FAC-to-CRC conversion in passage through the condenser is proportional to FAC-
to-CRC conversion in the river, including chlorine demand in the condenser and in
the river.
3. There is no TRC in the river upstream of the plant.
4. River water is the source of once-through condenser cooling water.
5. Condenser tube and waterbox surface chlorine demands are negligible.
6. There is no appreciable change in the FAC and CRC concentration in the cooling
water between the condenser outlet and the point of discharge to the mixing zone.
To calculate the TRC in the river at the edge of the mixing zone, first calculate the
amount of CRC that enters the river. The two sources of CRC in the river are CRC in the
discharge from the condensers, plus FAC in the discharge from the condensers as
multiplied by the FAC-to-CRC conversion ratio. These quantities are added together,
then multiplied by the condenser flow rate:
A = { 150 µg/L + (50 µg/L) [ (150 µg/L)/(800 µg/L) ] } x (445 ft3/sec ) (28.3 L/ft3)
The next step is to subtract the CRC demand of the river times the flow rate of the river
through the mixing zone:
B = A - (20 µg/L)(2200 ft3/sec)(28.3 L/ft3)
At this point, we have the total CRC in the river at the end of the mixing zone. The final
step to obtain the TRC concentration is to divide by the flow of the river plus the
condenser flow:
3-10
10937752
C = B/[(2200 ft3/sec + 445 ft/sec)(28.3 L/ft3)]
Or, in terms of our defined quantities:
(item j) = {[(item c)(item d/item a) + (item d)](item e) - [(item g)(item h)]}/(item h + item e)
The resulting answer is in µg/L TRC (actually CRC, since there is no FAC left) in the
river at the edge of the mixing zone.
In terms of the assumed numerical values for our example, the TRC concentration at the
edge of the mixing zone is calculated as follows:
TRC = {[(50 x (150/800) + 150) x 445] - (20 x 2200)}/(2200 + 445) = 10µg/L
A similar calculation could have been performed to determine if there was any FAC
remaining in the river water at the edge of the mixing zone. However, all the FAC is
converted since FAC concentrations in the discharge are generally so low when meeting
BAT that they yield negative numbers for discharge FAC mass units minus FAC river
demand in mass units. These negative numbers would be treated as zero in subsequent
calculations and make no contribution to TRC at the mixing zone edge.
In terms of our defined quantities:
(item k) = [(item c)(item e) - (item f)(item h)]/(item e + item h)
= 50 µg/L)(445 ft/sec) - (750 µg/L) [((2200 ft3/sec)]/(445 ft3/sec + 2200

ft3/sec)
= -615.4 µg/L
Thus,
(item b) = (item j) + (item k ≥0)
Therefore, since the FAC contribution is zero, the total TRC at the end of the mixing
zone is 10 µg/L, which is less than the CCC for fresh water (11 µg/L).
Calculation of concentration isopleths in the stream requires the use of a dilution model
that contains the equations to account for the chlorine reactions as well as its decay with
tune (decay is usually a small fraction of the total TRC reduction). Several of these
models (DKHPLM, MOBEN, PDS, PSY, LMS3D, and TVA) have been altered to include
chlorine reactions; the results have been published in a report sponsored by the Utility
Water Act Group.26
3-11
10937752
Waste Load Allocations
The water quality-based effluent limits can also be based on waste load allocations
(WLA), which are used to protect water quality when multiple discharges enter the
receiving water body. Assessing these limits often includes probabilistic procedures
used to allocate the maximum pollutant load allowed in the discharge. However,
controlling the discharge of chlorine, ozone, and other oxidants, when used for
microbiofouling control, is usually based on effluent guidelines, mixing zone
calculations, and water quality criteria-based limitations. Because these oxidants are not
conservative and dissipate rapidly upon entering the receiving stream, and their
application is intermittent, probabilistic procedures are not likely to be employed.
Bioassays and Bioassessment
Some permit limits are based on the toxicity of the water discharged rather than on the
amount of any one chemical. Tests to comply with these limits attempt to measure the
impact of the entire ("whole") effluent on the receiving water through biological toxicity
evaluation. Since it is impractical to measure the effluent effects of every possible
chemical on every possible species that may be in the receiving water, testing is
conducted with standard species considered to be at least as sensitive to the probable
pollutants in the waste stream as the most sensitive of the species actually present in the
receiving stream. These tests are called whole-effluent toxicity tests, or bioassays.
Another approach (bioassessment) performs biological surveys of the entire affected

biological and ecological community in the receiving water. These surveys can be
expensive, are difficult to interpret, and seldom show how an observed effect is caused
by specific regulatory requirements. Such general assessments, however, can be used to
declare a reach of stream as an affected area, and can, in extreme cases, result in a
general reduction of pollutants in all discharges within the reach of stream so
designated. Therefore, utilities should be alert to the possibility of general
bioassessments on reach of stream that includes their power plants. Such assessments
will not always be necessary. Power plants will generally be required only to do whole-
effluent toxicity testing and monitor those parameters contained in their NPDES
permits. As the EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control27 states: "The results from bioassessment cannot be targeted at a specific
discharger and used as specific regulatory requirements." Table 3-3 summarizes the
types of toxicity testing.
Toxicity testing requires raising sensitive species, such as Ceriodaphnia dubia and
fathead minnows, and then testing these species in the power plant effluent, using
either a flow-through or static testing mode.
3-12
10937752
• Flow-through: Where the effluent varies a great deal, the EPA may require flow-
through testing. However, since this requires a complex delivery system, less data
can be generated per unit cost than with static testing. Flow-through tests are most
appropriate where the effluent is highly variable and continuously discharged, as is
the case with intermittent chlorination of once-through cooling water.
• Static: Where the toxic pollutant is perishable, as is the case with TRC, static testing
results may be very difficult to interpret. The relevance of effects within the
receiving stream would also be difficult to interpret on grab samples taken during
chlorine application.
Table 3-3
Water Quality-Based Discharges, Toxicity Testing
Tests What They Do Costs/Considerations
Whole-effluent Measure toxicity of Flow-through testing requires
toxicity testing (or water rather than complex delivery system,
bioassays), either amount of any one generates less data; Static test
flew-through or static chemical results are difficult to interpret
testing mode for short-lived pollutants
Bioassessment Conduct biosurveys Expensive, difficult to interpret.

of entire effected
biological and
ecological community
in receiving water
If results of either static or flow-through toxicity tests are positive, further testing may
be required to determine if the microbiofouling control substance is the toxic agent, and
to place further restrictions on the effluent. Consequently, it is worthwhile to start any
whole-effluent toxicity testing with a good grasp of the conditions that will affect the
growth of the controls. Proper breeding conditions for the controls are important.
Because many of the test species are sensitive to unknown factors, the biological toxicity
tester must be sure that the control test conditions are benign to the species. Variability
of testing conditions between laboratories can also yield results that are difficult to
interpret, or results that falsely indicate significant toxicity. It is essential that toxicity
testing be done by qualified laboratories using rigorous QA/QC procedures. Other
EPRI studies have developed some important criteria for ensuring reliability of
Ceriodaphnia testing:28,29,30,31
• Renewal of the test solution on a daily basis is required for reliable survival and
breeding of the controls.
3-13
10937752
• Light intensity and duration must be appropriate. Light intensity of 50-100

footcandles supported high survival rates. Photoperiodicity was also important.
Short nights (16 hours daylight, 8 hours night) rendered unacceptable results.
• Water hardness criteria, closely specified in the EPA guidelines, can vary more than
the guidelines specify without affecting the growth/ breeding results.
As might be expected from a test on living organisms, in which all the survival factors
are not well known, interlaboratory coefficients of variability had a wide range.
Survival criterion variation was 29 to 39%, and reproduction criterion variation was 400
to 600% in the No Observed Effects Concentrations (NOECs). Intralaboratory variability
was much less.
A similar cross-laboratory study of fathead minnow toxicity testing32 showed a 34%

variation between laboratories, with only a 9.5% variation within a laboratory.
However, intralaboratory variation rose to 20% when there was a six-month time lapse
between sets o£ experiments.
These variations of test results with live testing indicate that test results may show
toxicity when none exists. Careful test monitoring and repeated testing are necessary for
utilities required to do toxicity testing of this type.
The EPA encourages off-site testing by commercial laboratories, except in the case of
nonpersistent toxic pollutants, such as chlorine. As noted earlier, the continuing
reaction of chlorine with the chlorine demand of the receiving water makes it far more
likely that on-site toxicity testing will be required where chlorine is the principal
toxicant in the discharge. In this case, the test will be set up at the utility site, and careful
monitoring by the utility is encouraged.
Ozone and Other Oxidants.

Oxidants such as ozone, bromine, and chlorine dioxide, while regulated on a case-by-
case basis, are generally controlled in terms of TRO and governed by the limitations for
TRC.
The selection of each particular microbiofouling control chemical agent must consider
the requirements of SARA Title III, Sec. 311. on Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), Sec.
312 on Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms, and Sec. 313 on Toxic
Chemical Release Forms. All of the foregoing oxidizing biocides are listed on EPA's
Acutely Toxic Chemicals List or on EPA's Sec. 313 List.33
Worker Safety and Health Considerations
Although this chapter is mainly concerned with the various regulations pertaining to
effluent discharge, the plant engineer must also be aware of other laws and regulations,
3-14
10937752
specifically pertaining to the worker's safety and health. These requirements deal
primarily with biocides, which are strictly controlled by the EPA.
Each biocide must be registered for a specific use, such as microbiological control. Also,
it must be registered for the specific cooling water systems in which it can be used. The
container label must specify a variety of information including, at a minimum:
• the percent of each active component
• product use instructions
• safety handling precautions
• EPA registration number and the EPA manufacturing location number
It is a federal violation to use a chemical in any manner other than its intended purpose
or at any dosage/duration/frequency not specified on the label.
Since all biocides are potentially dangerous, it is important to have the safety, handling,
and disposal procedures ready before receiving the chemicals. Personnel should be
thoroughly trained to work with and handle these substances safely. Biocide suppliers
should provide OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and MSDS
(Material Safety Data Sheet) forms prior to on-site delivery. Plant personnel should
read, understand, and implement proper storage and handling precautions before
receiving the chemical. This information should be posted on the storage container and
near the location where it will be used.
Glossary
1Q10: measure of stream or river at low flow; lowest single-day flow expected once in
10 years
7Q10: measure of stream or river at low flow; lowest seven-day average flow expected
once in 10 years
BAT (best available technology economically achievable)
BCT (best conventional pollutant control technology)
BPT (best practicable control technology currently available)
Biological Survey: the collecting, processing, and analysis of a representative portion of

the resident aquatic community to determine its structural and/or functional
characteristics
3-15
10937752
CCC (criteria continuous concentration): the EPA national water quality criteria
recommendation for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to
which organisms can be exposed indefinitely without causing unacceptable effect
CMC (criteria maximum concentration): the EPA national water quality criteria
recommendation for the highest instream concentration of a toxicant or an effluent to
which organisms can be exposed for a brief period of time without causing mortality
CRC (combined residual chlorine): the difference between total residual chlorine and
free available chlorine
FAC (free available chlorine): the value obtained using the amperometric titration
method for free available chlorine
Mixing zone: an area where an effluent discharge undergoes an initial dilution and is
extended to cover the secondary mixing in the ambient waterbody
NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System): the permitting program

established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
TRC (total residual chlorine): the value obtained using the forward amperometric
titration method for total residual chlorine
TRO (total residual oxidant): the value obtained using the forward amperometric
titration method; usually used in environments where chlorine is not expected to be the
only residual oxidant
TSS (total suspended solids): undissolved particulate matter held in a water column by
currents
TUa (toxic units, acute): a measure of toxicity in an effluent
Whole-effluent toxicity: the aggregate toxic effect of an effluent measured directly with
a toxicity test
WLA (waste load allocations): discharge allocations designed to protect water quality
in the receiving water body
References
1. J.M. Kovalic and A. Hennelly. The Clean Water Act of 1987. Alexandria, VA: Water
Pollution Control Federation, 1987.
2. Ibid.
3-16
10937752
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Environmental Statutes. Rockville, MD: Government Institutes, Inc., 1991, p. 435.
6. Ibid.
7. T.L. Garrett. "Analysis and Perspective: Examination of 1987 Amendments to Clean

Water Act Shows Refinement of Existing Programs, Addition of New Ones."
Environment Reporter, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, Feb. 20, 1987,
pp. 1805-1809.
8. Ibid.
9. 40 CFR Part 423.13.
10. 40 CFR Part 423.12.
11. 40 CFR Parts 423.12 and 423.13.
12. 40 CFR Part 423.11 (a).
13. D. McDonald and J. E Garey. "Chlorine Minimization." In Proceedings: Condenser

Biofouling Control−State-of-the-Art Symposium. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power
Research Institute, November 1985. CS-4339, p. 4-11.
14. Kovalic, op. cit., p. 51.
15. Memorandum from LaJuana S. Wilcher, Assistant Administrator, to Regions and

States, "Chlorine Criteria: Consideration of Intermittent Discharges," December 11,
1990.
16. J. Coughlan and M. H. Davis. "Concentrations of Chlorine Around Marine Cooling

Water Outfalls: Validation of a Model." In Water Chlorination Chemistry,
Environmental Impact and Health Effects, vol. 5, edited by R. L. Jolley et al. Chelsea,
Mich.: Lewis Publishers, 1985.
17. J. E Lawler, T. B. Vanderbeck, and E M. Cumble. "Prediction of Total Residual

Chlorine in Power Plant Discharges and Receiving Waters." In Water Chlorination
Chemistry, Environmental Impact and Health Effects, vol. 5, edited by R. L. Jolley et al.
Chelsea, Mich.: Lewis Publishers, 1985.
18. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/505/2-900-001, March 1991.
3-17
10937752
19. Limno Tech, Inc. Dynamic Toxics Wasteload Allocation Model (DYNTOX): User’s
Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, 1985.
20. L.A. Bums and D. M. Cline. Exposure Analysis Modeling System Reference Manual for
EXAMS II. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory Athens, GA. E. PA 600/3-
85-038, 1985.
21. R. B. Ambrose et al. WASP4, A Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model−Model Theory,
User's Manual, and Programmer's Guide. U.S. EPA, Center for Exposure Assessment
Modeling, Athens, GA. EPA/600/3-87/039, 1988.
22. R. C. Johansen et al. Hydrologic Simulation Program−FORTRAN (HSPF): Users Manual

for Release 8.0. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
EPA/600/3-84-066, 1984.
23. S.B. Vandergift and R. B. Ambrose. SARAH2: A Near Field Exposure Assessment Model
for Surface Waters. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
EPA/600/3-88/020, 1988.
24. D. S. Brown and J. D. Allison. MINTEQA1 Equilibrium Metal Speciation Model: A Users
Manual. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. EPA/600/3-87-
012, 1987.
25. EPA Technical Support Document, op. cit., p. 33.
26. "Chlorine Plume Modeling Study." Prepared for Utility Water Act Group by Pearl
River, NY: Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, April 1983.
27. EPA Technical Support Document, op. cit.
28. Effects of Environmental and Experimental Design Factors on Culturing and Testing of
Ceriodaphnia dubia. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, September
1989. EN-6468.
29. Precision of the EPA Seven-Day Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproduction Test: Intra-
and Interlaboratory Study. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute,
November 1989. EN-6469.
30. Effects of Environmental and Experimental Design Factors on Culturing and Testing of
Ceriodaphnia dubia. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, September
1989. EN-6468.
3-18
10937752
31. Precision of the EPA Seven-Day Fathead Minnow Larval Survival and Growth Test: Intra-
and Interlaboratory Study. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, January
1989. EA-6189.
32. Ibid.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. List of Lists: Catalogue of Analytes and Methods.
Office of Water (WH-552), 21W-4005, August 1991.
3-19
10937752
10937752
4
MICROBIOFOULING DETECTION AND MONITORING
Introduction
Microbial fouling of power-generating-station condenser tubes can cause significant

performance losses due to:
• the insulating properties of the attached microorganisms
• the surface roughness caused by the fouling deposits
The biofilm’s insulating properties reduce condenser heat transfer rates, while the
surface roughness increases frictional resistance, resulting in reduced cooling-water
flows and increased pumping power costs.
This chapter presents methods for detecting and monitoring condenser

microbiofouling. Methods that can be employed while a unit is operating are referred to
as on-line, while those that require the unit to be out of service or significantly derated
are referred to as off-line. Both on- and off-line monitoring methods can be further
categorized as direct or indirect. Approaches that measure the effects of biofouling on
an actual operating condenser are direct; methods requiring mathematical correlation to
an operating unit are indirect.
Heat transfer, pressure drop, visual/tactile inspection, and measurements of deposit

mass and deposit thickness are the raw data on which microfouling detection and
measurement depend.1 On-line direct methods require heat transfer measurements
(usually through measurement of terminal temperature difference and related
quantities) and pressure-drop measurements. These methods are usable and useful for
all condensers.
Visual and tactile methods can be used with sidestream monitors (an on-line indirect
method) or with condensers that can easily be brought off line. Similarly, deposit mass
and deposit thickness measurements can be used off line, or with on-line indirect
measurement devices such as sidestream monitors. Deposit mass and deposit thickness
measurements usually require arrangements for borescopes, scrapers, or coupons to be
placed in the system. While not a direct indicator of fouling, water analysis can be used
to some extent to infer the presence of biological activity.
4-1
10937752
Microbiofouling Detection And Monitoring
On-Line Direct Methods/Performance Calculations
On-line direct monitoring methods usually depend on heat transfer and pressure-drop
(or friction factor) measurements across the length of the condenser tubes. While both of
these measurements are accurate and sensitive, heat transfer is often the measurement
method of choice since it most directly relates to the operating efficiency of the
generating unit.
Another on-line method is include visual examination (by borescope), which measures
deposit thickness. Some successes have been reported using an on-line waterproof
borescope for visual examination.2 The bore-scope approach, however, requires
penetration of the condenser water-box and significant flow interruptions within the
tube being viewed. This flow interruption can remove or disrupt any attached microbial
fouling, which could lead to false interpretations of the magnitude of the problem.
Furthermore, visual observations are qualitative and do not provide the quantitative
data needed for performance measurement.
Biofilms provide some degree of insulation for the surfaces they cover, increasing heat
transfer resistance. Measuring changes in heat transfer can be a sensitive nondestructive
method for detecting and monitoring microbial fouling. Monitoring changes over time
provides information related to the buildup of fouling deposits and also indicates the
effect these deposits may have on operating efficiency.
There are two general approaches for on-line, direct heat transfer monitoring. The first
requires a complex calculation of a cleanliness or performance factor for the operating
condenser. This calculation uses a number of measured operating variables to
determine the present overall heat transfer rate and compare it to an empirically
derived Heat Exchanger Institute (HEI) value for the clean condition. This method is
definitive but time consuming. For this reason, although the approach is the most
accurate, condenser performance or cleanliness calculations are rarely performed.
Figure 4-1 shows the trend in calculated cleanliness factors between backwashes for an
operating power plant: the decay over the five-day period is quite dramatic.
4-2
10937752
Figure 4-1
Trend in condenser cleanliness factor (CF) over a 5-day period (8/20-8/25).
The second approach to understanding biofilm effects on plant operation, the "trend"
approach, tracks trends in condenser efficiency using single or easily calculated
operating variables that are sensitive to fouling. Relevant variables include condenser
backpressure, terminal temperature difference (TTD) and unit heat rate. For the same
plant as shown in Figure 4-1 above, Figures 4-2 and 4-3 show the circulating water flow
and the differential cooling water temperatures (delta-T) for two of the four condenser
waterboxes. Note that a trend is visible for water flow rates, but with great swings in
the measurements. The delta-T measurements, on the other hand, hide the cleanliness
factor decay until the dramatic decrease when a condenser backwash is once again
required. Condenser backpressure deviations (as shown in Figure 4-4) as a change from
4-3
10937752
"bogey" (expected pressure) are much more telling, showing a trend very similar to the
curve in the cleanliness calculation.
Figure 4-2
Trend circulating water flow over a 5-day period (8/20−8/25) from a typical plant
4-4
10937752
Figure 4-3
Trend 1-1, 1-3 waterbox delta- t over a 5-day period
(8/20−8/25).
4-5
10937752
Figure 4-4
Trend ave. dev. from bogey over a 5-day period
(8/20−8/25)
The decision of which variable to measure and follow depends on the accuracy of the
instrumentation available and on site-specific evaluations of the various trending
options. Table 4-1 shows condenser instrumentation required for accurate readings of
various quantities. Each waterbox should be instrumented for testing.
4-6
10937752
Table 4-1
Condenser Instrumentation
Data Type Number of Sites Location Required Accuracy
CW flow rates One per W/B Upstream of inlet 2% of total estimated
tested W/B flow
CW inlet One per W/B Lower part of .05-.1°F
temperature tested inlet W/B
CW outlet Minimum of 4 Minimum of 20 .05-.1 °F
temperature points across feet downstream
diameter of of W/B exit
discharge pipe
W/B differential One per W/B Lower part of 0.5 in. HgA
pressure tested W/B
Condenser Minimum of 1 per 1-3 feet above top 0.01 in. HgA
pressure 10 feet of tube of tube bundle
length (away from air
removal section)
Note: W/B = waterbox; CW = cooling water
Another approach to the problem was taken by Potomac Electric, EPRI and Power
Technologies, Inc. This group developed an on-line condenser performance monitor
that compares actual turbine back pressure to the achievable value for that turbine. The
monitor unit has been demonstrated at Morgantown Unit 2.3
Condenser Cleanliness
Condenser cleanliness compares the actual overall heat transfer coefficient to the
theoretical clean coefficient of the operating condenser. In reality, the use of the term
"cleanliness factor" is inappropriate; "performance factor" is more correct. The factor
depends on a calculation of the heat transfer coefficient. Many other operating
parameters, such as unit load, cooling-water flows, air in-leakage, and tubesheet
blockage, affect the actual heat transfer coefficient. (See Chapter 5 for performance
factor calculations.)
Performance factor calculations are usually performed only periodically. To make these
calculations, one needs to determine both the theoretical (clean) and actual condenser
heat transfer rates.4 (See Appendix A for worksheets to calculate the performance
factor.) One can often improve accuracy during these measurements by keeping
variables both consistent and constant (i.e., flows, loads, etc.) Also, macrofouling or
tubesheet blockage can dramatically alter calculated values.
4-7
10937752
Condenser Pressure (Steam-Side)
As microbiofouling insulates tube surfaces within an operating condenser, a greater

driving force is required to transfer a fixed amount of heat. This driving force is the
difference between the steam and cooling-water temperatures; it is somewhat
analogous to the pressure within a water pipe. As a valve is partially closed in a pipe,
constricting flow, the pipeline pressure must be increased to deliver the same amount of
water. This flow restriction would be analogous to the reduction in heat flux (heat
transferred per unit time per unit area) in a steam condenser as fouling progresses.
As microbiofouling increases within an operating condenser, the condenser steam

temperature must increase (assuming that condenser duty [Q], cooling-water velocity,
and inlet water temperature remain constant). Steam temperatures are often hard to
measure accurately, but they correlate directly to the condenser's absolute pressure,
which is measured on most condensers. Therefore, monitoring condenser pressure can
be used to trend microbial fouling, as in Figure 4-4 above.
Recent EPRI work on pressure-monitoring techniques has developed a series of

pressure sensors that can be used to monitor heat rates and back pressures accurately.
In this system, pressure readings are taken only after moisture is bled from the sensing
lines, a frequent cause of inaccuracy in other pressure readings. Even for trending data,
accuracy in monitoring pressure is essential.5
Condenser pressures change significantly with unit load and inlet water temperatures.
These changes, however, are predictable and can be used to generate curves of expected
condenser pressures under clean conditions at various loads and inlet water
temperatures/from data supplied by the original manufacturers of the turbine and/or
condenser. An example of such curves is shown in Figure 4-5. Using selected data,
expected clean condenser pressures are then subtracted from actual (measured)
operating values to provide "deviation from bogey" estimates. For example, using the
figures shown in the worksheet in Appendix A for "Plant X," with a clean condenser
(cleanliness factor of 90%), and an inlet cooling-water temperature of 65°F, the
condenser pressure would be 1.26 in. HgA (see Figure 4-5). Plant X's measured
condenser pressure is 1.96 in. Hg. Therefore, subtracting clean from actual gives a
deviation from bogey of 0.70 in. HgA.
4-8
10937752
Figure 4-5
Condenser pressure as a function of unit load and inlet cooling-water temperature.
Terminal Temperature Difference (TTD)
The TTD is defined as the difference between the condenser saturated steam
temperature (TS) and the outlet cooling-water temperature (T2)' Like condenser
pressure, TTD is used primarily for trending. The steam temperature, if not measured
directly, can be assumed to correspond to the condenser absolute pressure, which can
be determined from steam tables. If little or no subcooling is evident (condensate exit
temperature is nearly equal to saturated steam temperature), condensate exit
temperature can be substituted for TS. TTD is a more sensitive measurement than
condenser pressure and, as such, often can be used to detect microbiofouling earlier. For
example, for a typical single-pass condenser with an inlet temperature of 60°E the
difference between the TTD at 90% and 80% clean conditions could be about 2.2°E
whereas the difference between condenser pressures might be only 0.10 in. Hg. TTD is
relatively independent of inlet cooling-water fluctuations. However, like condenser
pressure, the ability to compare clean TTD values at different unit loads and cooling-
water temperatures increases accuracy. The log mean temperature difference can be
used in a similar fashion.
Heat Rate
Heat rate measures the overall operating efficiency of the plant: as heat rate increases,
efficiency decreases. Unit heat rate is defined as the ratio of the energy input to the
energy output, which is a ratio of the fuel consumed to the amount of net electrical
4-9
10937752
power produced, expressed as Btu/kWh. Since microbiofouling impacts both condenser

and pumping efficiencies, it affects heat rate. Although each generating unit is affected
differently, Figure 4-6 shows that the magnitude of the impact depends on condenser
pressure.
Figure 4-6
Typical heat rate improvement in relation to condenser operating pressure.
Since heat rate is a measure of the overall unit operating efficiency, numerous plant
components other than the condenser can significantly impact the overall heat rate. For
this reason, heat rate is often inappropriate as a measuring tool for condenser
microbiofouling.
Condenser Pressure Drop
Fouling deposits cause increased fluid frictional resistance by decreasing the effective
diameter of tubes and by increasing the effective roughness of the substratum.6 These
increases in resistance affect hydraulic performance, which can be measured by
monitoring pressure drop across a condenser tube or the entire tube bundle, making
pressure drop both a sensitive and nondestructive method of detecting and monitoring
microbial fouling. However, pressure drop is also affected by tubesheet blockages
which, in certain circumstances, prevent differentiation between blockages and
microfouling.
4-10
10937752
Some plants monitor circulating water pump amperage as a method for trending
fouling problems. If pump voltage remains fairly stable, then any increase in pump
amperage is assumed to be a result of the increased power required to overcome the
additional frictional resistance caused by microfouling.
Pump amperage, however, may change for a variety of reasons:

• Changes in suction head
• Pump wear
• Cleanliness of trash racks and other in-line debris screens
• Macrofouling within the circulating water tunnels
• Water density and viscosity changes
• Tubesheet plugging
• Microbiological fouling of the condenser tubes
The large number of reasons for pump amperage changes suggests the difficulty in
using this method. Many causes need to be isolated before quantitative estimates of
microfouling can be made. Because of this, condenser pressure drop is usually
considered a better approach for estimating condenser microfouling problems.
On-line pressure-drop instrumentation is usually located on the inlet and outlet

waterboxes of the condenser. Instrumentation may be as simple as a differential
mercury manometer or inlet and outlet pressure gauges, or as sophisticated as
electronic differential pressure gauges. Differential pressure gauges are the most
sensitive. Electronic gauges with transmitters are used for continuous monitoring,
usually with in-plant computers or data logging capabilities.
As microbial fouling occurs within the operating condenser, the pressure drop across
the condenser increases. This increase is often masked since cooling-water flow is
simultaneously reduced by the hydraulic resistance. Therefore, unless flow is accurately
monitored and used to standardize or correct the observed pressure-drop readings,
fouling events can be missed. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 demonstrate this. Figure 4-7 presents
differential pressure-drop data across an operating condenser over a 180-day period.
Figure 4-8 presents the identical data corrected for flow.7
Flow measurement in condensers is intrinsically difficult, because velocity profiles are

not uniform across the tubesheet. One way to correct for flow variations is to divide the
inlet to outlet waterbox differential pressure by the square of the calculated average
condenser tube velocity. Using the calculation in Appendix A, the corrected pressure-
drop ratio equals the pressure drop/velocity2 = 9.58 in. HgA/(6.7 ft/s)2 = .213. As
fouling progresses, this ratio increases.
4-11
10937752
However, this "correction" should be done with caution, as squaring velocity also
squares the error inherent in the flow measurement. If poor flow measurement
techniques (e.g., pump curves instead of a direct measurement) are used, the error
propagated from the flow inaccuracy could mask biofouling effects on the velocity-
corrected pressure drop.
Figure 4-7
Condenser pressure drop.
4-12
10937752
Figure 4-8
Condenser pressure drop corrected for cooling-water flow.
Combining pressure-drop data with heat transfer data can often provide clues as to the
types of fouling occurring. A rapid heat transfer loss with a significant increase in
pressure drop would suggest a microbiofouling problem, while a rapid heat transfer
change without any significant change in differential pressure could indicate a scale
condition.
Further information can often be obtained by evaluating the rates of change (see Table
4-2). A gradual increase in pressure drop often suggests microbiofouling, while a rapid
pressure drop may indicate tubesheet blockage caused by macrofouling or debris.
4-13
10937752
Table 4-2
Diagnosing Fouling
Pressure-Drop Data Heat Transfer Data Suggests

Gradual increase Rapid heat transfer loss Microbiofouling
No significant Rapid heat transfer loss Scale condition
increase
Gradual increase Gradual heat transfer loss Microbiofouling
Rapid increase Rapid heat transfer loss Tubesheet blockage caused by
macrofouling or debris
Although direct condenser monitoring would appear to be the ideal approach, it has
certain limitations in accurately monitoring microbial fouling. For example:
• Unknown tubesheet or tube blockages or waterbox air binding problems may
preclude accurate and reliable tube velocity calculations. Accurate on-line
circulating water flow measurements are hard to obtain and are not available in
many power plants.
• Direct heat transfer calculations are, in reality, performance estimates and reflect a
number of potential heat transfer loss variables. These may include changing flow
values, shell-side fouling, air blanketing, and changing load conditions as well as the
waterside tube fouling that is of interest. These multiple variables often make it
difficult to isolate and monitor the waterside fouling.
• Many condensers are poorly instrumented, with too few or improperly located
sensors. Additionally, many of these sensors are difficult or impossible to calibrate
while the unit is on line, so drift problems remain unknown (possibly for months)
until the unit comes off line and the instruments are recalibrated.
On-Line Indirect Methods
On-line indirect monitoring continues to gain in popularity. It can overcome some of

the limitations of on-line direct monitoring, especially when used in conjunction with
those direct methods.
There are two main approaches to on-line indirect monitoring: side-stream monitoring
and on-line condenser tube monitoring (monitoring individual tubes within the
operating condenser). Both methods avoid many of the concerns of direct methods, but
both must be mathematically correlated to the operating condenser for reliable
forecasting and trending of microbial fouling.
4-14
10937752
Sidestream Monitors
Sidestream monitors, although possibly more difficult to correlate mathematically, have

greater operating flexibility and require few modifications to operating systems. They
can be divided into two categories according to geometry: annular and tubular.
Schematics of typical monitors in these two configurations are shown in Figure 4-9 and
Figure 4-10, respectively.
Figure 4-9
Schematic of typical annular monitor.
Figure 4-10
Schematic of typical tubular monitor.
Although both types have advantages, neither has been proven best for monitoring
microbiological fouling. Two studies describe the annular monitor design in detail.8,9
(See Table 4-3.)
4-15
10937752
Table 4.3
Sidestream Monitors
Description Fouling Advantages Disadvantages
Detected by
Annular
Heated rod or Changes in Made of glass or other Geometry of device is
tube installed heat transfer transparent material, different from geometry of
inside a larger resistance allowing on-line visual inside of condenser tube
tube; a side- between inspection Visual inspection is not
stream of heated core Simple, compact, quantitative
cooling water and cooling adaptable design Outer glass may become
is passed water
Made from off-the-shelf fouled
through the
items Problems in attaining fully
annular space
between the All heat applied to developed flow or thermal
tubes (see annular heater passes conditions
figure 4.9) through tested surface Difficult to detect
Tube material alloys are sedimentation fouling10
simple to match Difficult to maintain steady,
uniform flow conditions
Tubular
Heated Changes in Geometry is identical to On-line visual inspection of
section of heat transfer actual operating fouling surface Is
tube through resistance condenser impossible
which a side- between Simple, compact, Heated length of condenser
steam of heated tube adaptable design tube may be too short to
cooling water wall and develop proper hydraulic or
Made from off-the-shelf
is passed (see cooling thermal conditions
items
Figure 4-10) water
flowing Tube length can be
through extended to ensure
inside of properly developed
tube hydraulic and thermal
conditions
Tube material alloys are
simple to match
Pressure drop can be
easily measured
4-16
10937752
On-Line Condenser Tube Monitoring
In addition to the various sidestream approaches discussed above, it is possible to

monitor tubes within the actual operating condenser. However, using individual
condenser tubes for monitoring often requires significant waterbox modifications, and
their operating conditions are often confined to the operating conditions of the
condenser.
On-line fouling of condenser tubes can be monitored in three ways (see Table 4-4):
• Tube extensions
• Traverse probes
• Internally mounted hardware such as internal miniature thermocouples
4-17
10937752
Table 4-4 On-Line Condenser Tube Monitoring

Interference
with plant
Cost Operations Advantages Disadvantages
Tube $10,000 None Provides sensitive and Requires significant
extensions accurate fouling data modifications to
under real operating discharge waterbox
conditions Results must be
On-line biomass samples correlated
can be gathered mathematically to entire
condenser
No simultaneous
evaluation of control
variables
Traverse $15,000 None Actual operating tubes are Tubes cannot be cleaned
Probes monitored on line, precluding
accurate calculation of
percent
cleanliness/cleanliness
factor
Perfect alignment of the
traverse probe with
monitored tubes
required for flow
measurements
Continuous on-line
monitoring difficult
Results must be
correlated
mathematically to entire
condenser
Requires one or more
penetrations of shell
Internally $75,000 None Data can be monitored Cannot differentiate
mounted continuously between tubeside or
hardware Steam temperature is steam-side fouling
accurately monitored Measuring process can
result in
nonrepresentative data
Extending individual condenser tubes through the discharge water-box allows for
accurate measurement of tube flow velocities and outlet temperatures. These data,
when used with available inlet water temperature and saturated steam temperature,
allow an accurate determination of individual tube heat transfer efficiency. These same
4-18
10937752
values, when compared to nearby extended "cleaned tubes," can provide accurate
cleanliness factor data. This approach is described in detail in the ASME Power Test
Code.11 Figure 4-11 shows the test method installation.
Figure 4-11
ASME test installation for condenser tube extensions.
A modification of this approach was used by researchers doing chlorine minimization

studies at two Midwestern power stations.12 Tube extensions were modified to allow for
a removable coupon section for mass analyses of fouling, as shown in Figure 4-12.
Figure 4-12
Condenser tube extension with removable coupon section.
The tube extension approach has the following advantages:

• It can provide both sensitive and accurate fouling data under real operating
conditions.
4-19
10937752
• If tube coupon sections are incorporated, on-line biomass samples can be gathered.
• The approach does not interfere with the operation of the unit.
• The possible disadvantages include:
• Significant modifications must be made to the discharge waterbox: piercing the
waterbox for each tube extended, followed by proper sealing.
• The data obtained represents only a small portion of the total number of tubes
within the operating condenser, and results must be correlated.
• Test conditions are fixed by the operating condenser and prevent simultaneous
evaluation of a variety of operating or fouling control variables.
Off-Line Methods
Both indirect and direct off-line monitoring techniques require the interruption of
cooling-water flow. Off-line techniques include visual inspections, removal and analysis
of deposit mass and destructive tube/ coupon measurement.
Visual Inspection
Although strictly qualitative in nature, visual examination of tube surfaces can often
confirm suspected fouling problems. One report goes so far as to state that visual
inspection is the most effective method of determining the type and extent of fouling.13
Visual and tactile observations are commonly used by the vast majority of power plant
operators to estimate tube fouling, as well as to assess the nature of deposits, such as
sedimentation, corrosion, scale, and biofilm. The major problem associated with visual
inspection is the difficulty in conveying observations in some quantitative manner. The
use of a borescope with an attached video camera can help document observations.
Removal and Analysis of Deposit Mass
Mass measurements involve destructive analyses; i.e., the deposit is destroyed. Scrapers
collect the deposit mass from representative tubes or coupon sections, passing through
each tube several times until only negligible deposit mass remains. In an operating
condenser, samples are taken from several tubes within each condenser quadrant. Once
the samples are collected, the deposit can be analyzed quantitatively and tube-to-tube
variances averaged.
At a minimum, analyses should include ash and dry weight measurements. The
difference between the ash and dry weight is referred to as "volatile loss" and is often
expressed as a percent of the dry weight. Since most of the volatile loss is associated
with the oxidation of carbon, the percentage of volatiles is a good indication of the
4-20
10937752
extent of microbial fouling. Recently initiated biofilms typically show a high percentage
of volatiles, often in excess of 40%. As the fouling layer matures, more and more
sediment (such as silica, alumina and iron) is incorporated into the film, and the
percentage of volatiles decreases. Mature biofilms typically show a percentage of
volatiles between 20-30%.
It is difficult to identify the type of bacteria. Scraping bacteria during cleaning destroys
the .ability to identify them. They can be examined in situ on coupons, or swabs of the
biofilm can be cultured. There are two possible purposes for such examinations:
• Some treatment methods might be more effective for some microbes.
• Corrosion-influencing bacteria might be identified, and intensified treatment begun.
The susceptibility of different microbes to different treatment methods generally does

not justify the expense of detailed analysis of the biofilm, especially if oxidants are used.
On the other hand, corrosion-inducing bacteria can be a major problem. In 1988, EPRI
published a guide to identifying MIC-producing bacteria.14
In addition to the above analyses, other methods can be used to help determine the
nature and consistency of the deposit. These might include adenosine trilphosphate,
total organic carbon, carbonate, manganese, iron, alumina and silica as well as total
bacteria differentiated into aerobes and anaerobes.
Destructive Tube/Coupon Measurements
Valuable information can also be obtained by analyzing removed condenser tubes or

coupon test sections. Energy-dispersive X ray (EDX) can analyze deposits for elemental
constituents such as carbon, iron, silica, alumina, manganese, etc. Scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) can determine the type of deposit matrix and provide a high-
magnification picture of the deposit composition. Examining the tube surface after
removing deposits can suggest corrosion fouling problems. Finally, sections of removed
fouled tubes can be analyzed for deposit heat transfer resistance using a tubular fouling
monitor, as discussed above.15
Interpreting the Results of Monitoring
Discussed below, are the advantages and disadvantages of various fouling monitoring
methods. The use of one method over another is often dictated by site-specific
conditions, such as ease of piercing the waterbox. Although methods are presented as
individual options, better results may be obtained by using several techniques
simultaneously. By combining these general monitoring approaches, one often can
isolate a microbial fouling problem from other variables impacting performance.
4-21
10937752
Figure 4-13 presents a simplified logic diagram that details how a combination of the
various monitoring approaches might be used to isolate a performance problem. The
logic diagram is not meant to be all-inclusive, rather it is an example and possible
starting point for plants having difficulty isolating microbiofouling problems. This
figure shows the significant benefits of implementing proper monitoring techniques
and systems.
Figure 4-13
Fouling logic diagram.
4-22
10937752
Recent Developments
Recent developments in biofouling monitoring include on-line direct methods that have
not been put into practice, or have been tested at only one or two sites. These methods
include acoustic monitoring methods and advanced pressure monitoring.
Research on the development of on-line systems to measure biofilm deposit thickness

by acoustic reflection and acoustic scattering/impedance is preliminary, and these
methods cannot be considered a viable option at the present time.16
As mentioned above, recent EPRI work on pressure monitoring techniques has

developed a series of pressure sensors that monitor heat rates and back pressures
accurately by taking pressure readings only after moisture is bled from the sensing
lines.17
New methods in indirect on-line monitoring include monitoring cooling water, while
direct on-line monitoring methods include the development of various internally
mounted probes.
Monitoring the cooling water itself is a relatively new approach to monitoring fouling.
Water analyses are not a direct indicator of fouling, but the presence of biological
activity can sometimes be "inferred" by analyzing water. Material balances on total
phosphorus, nitrate-nitrite and organic carbon (dissolved and particulate) could help to
indicate the extent to which nutrients are being retained in the system, presumably
being used in the production of biomass.
Internally mounted hardware for on-line monitoring includes the transverse probe and
internal monitoring with miniature thermocouples.
To investigate the transverse probe, EPRI18 and ESEERCO19 studied the use of an
instrumented probe inserted through the discharge waterbox to traverse the free jet
emanating from individual condenser tubes. The probe instrumentation included
temperature and flow (pitot) sensors, which provided discharge temperature and flow
velocity data for each traversed tube. This information combined with inlet water
temperature and saturated steam temperature provided the inputs needed for the
accurate calculation of individual tube heat transfer resistance.
The probe approach also has several advantages:

• Monitoring costs are significantly less than for tube extensions.
• It does not interfere with plant operations.
• Actual operating tubes are monitored, thereby reducing the uncertainty in
attempting to match variables in sidestream units.
4-23
10937752
The probe approach has several disadvantages:

• All tubes cannot be cleaned on line, thereby precluding a means of accurately
calculating percent cleanliness/cleanliness factor over time.
• Perfect alignment of the probe with each measured tube is critical since a slight
offset will significantly influence flow measurements. The approach does not lend
itself to continuous on-line monitoring.
• Since only small numbers of individual tubes can be measured, mathematical
correlation to the overall condenser is required.
• Since a probe must be inserted into the waterbox, one or more penetrations of the
shell are required.
Another approach to on-line direct monitoring is placement of internal thermocouples.

One manufacturer recently announced this approach for monitoring the heat transfer
coefficients of individual condenser tubes while the unit is on line.20 The method uses
miniature thermocouples mounted on the inlet and outlet of each tube to be monitored.
As shown in Figure 4-14, a hydraulic device mounted on the discharge tubesheet closes
the tube for some time. After approximately 10 minutes, the water in the tube assumes
the temperature of the steam, thereby determining the steam temperature. The tube is
then reopened. The outlet thermocouple first measures the saturated steam temperature
and then after a certain period of time (To) measures the discharge water temperature.
The amount of time required to obtain the change from the steam temperature to the
discharge temperature is directly correlated to the flow velocity. With this data, the on-
line heat transfer coefficient can be calculated.
4-24
10937752
Figure 4-14
On-line hydraulically actuated thermomonitor.
The advantages of this approach are:

• Data on the fouling of on-line selected single tubes can be accurately monitored on a
continuous basis.
• Steam temperature is accurately measured, and an accurate method is used for
measuring flow velocity.
• There is no interference with plant operations.
The major disadvantages are:

• The cost is high for a multiple-tube system with the required computer-controlled
measuring/data logging system.
• Since a continuously cleaned reference tube is not available, an accurate percent
cleanliness estimate cannot be made. Without the clean reference, one cannot
differentiate between tubeside or steamside fouling.
• During the measuring process, any attached microbial fouling will be exposed to
brief periods of elevated temperature when the tube is closed. Upon the rapid
4-25
10937752
opening of the tube, significant fouling/ sediment may be sloughed from the rapid
flow excursion. This will result in nonrepresentative data and erroneous conclusions
of unit cleanliness.
References
1. B. A. Bennett and J. F. Garey. Condenser Performance Test Facility Phase 1 Report. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1989. RP2300-6 Draft, p. 2-1.
2. J. Ragan. Presentation at EPRI Service Water System Working Group Meeting. 1988,
Dallas, Tex.
3. G. G. Poe and R. H. Leyse. Mark I Performance Monitoring Products. Palo Alto Calif.:
Electric Power Research Institute, September 1989, GS/EL-5648.
4. Heat Exchanger Institute (HEI). "Standards for Steam Surface Condensers." 1975,
sixth ed.
5. E Wong, T. Armor, and J. Oggerino. "Condenser Back Pressure Monitor." First Use.
Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, October 1985.
6. W. G. Characklis and K.C. Marshall' (Editors). Biofilms. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1990, p. 538.
7. E A. March and C. W. Almquist. "Techniques for Monitoring -Flowrate and

Hydraulic Fouling of Main Steam Condensers." In Proceedings: Condenser Technology
Symposium, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1988. CS-5942-SR, pp.
6.1-6.17.
8. R. Hillman. "Biofouling and Corrosion in Service Water Systems: Monitoring,

Analysis, and Control." In Proceedings: EPRI Seminar on Service Water System
Reliability, Improvements, 1988, p. 5-2.
9. J. G. Knudsen. "Apparatus and Techniques for Measurement of Fouling of Heat

Transfer Surfaces." In Condenser Biofouling Control⎯Symposium Proceedings, Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science, in cooperation with Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric
Power Research Institute, 1980, CS-1450.
10. K. I. Johnson and D. A. Neitzel. Improving the Reliability of Open-Cycle Water Systems.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-4626, PNL-5876, vol. 2., March
1987, p. 18.
11. ASME, Power Test Code, "Steam Condensing Apparatus," 12.2, 1983.
4-26
10937752
12. J. W. Lingle and P. D. Schumacher. "Dechlorination of Condenser Cooling Water:

Wisconsin Electric Power Company Valley Power Plant." In Condenser Biofouling
Control⎯Symposium Proceedings, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science, in
cooperation with Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1980, CS-1450.
13. K. I. Johnson and D. A. Neitzel. op. cit., p. 16.
14. G. J. Licina. Sourcebook for Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in Nuclear Power

Plants. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1988, NP-5580; and G. J.
Licina. Detection and Control of Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion, An Extension of
the Sourcebook for Microbiologically Influenced Corrosion in Nuclear Power Plan ts. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1990, NP-6815.
15. Bridget Scientific Inc., Sandwich, Mass. Personal communication.
16. R. Hillman. Biofouling Detection Monitoring Devices: Status Assessment. Palo Alto,
Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1985. CS-3914, p. 5-46.
17. E Wong, op. cit.
18. Y. G. Mussalli. Heat Exchanger Tube Coatings and Liners. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric
Power Research Institute, 1989, GS-6203.
19. ESEERCO. Condenser Tube Coatings and Inserts Evaluations. ESEERCO Research
Report EP-85-26, 1987.
20. W. Czolkoss. "A New Technique for Online Monitoring of Heat Transfer Coefficient
of Single Condenser Tubes." In Condenser Technology Symposium, Boston, Mass. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1991, GS-7349.
4-27
10937752
10937752
5
COSTS OF BIOFOULING
Introduction
The costs of microbiological fouling in power plant condensers can be divided into two
components: costs attributed to unit performance degradation and costs associated with
any loss of unit availability. Although both of these costs can be truly considerable,
accurately estimating either one can be difficult and subject to interpretation.
In addition, these costs are separate and distinct from the costs of treatment to prevent
and/or control condenser microbiofouling. A comparison of treatment costs and
biofouling costs to determine the benefit of different treatment approaches is a key step
in selecting the optimum biofouling control strategy. Treatment costs are discussed in
Chapter 6 on Chemical Treatment and Chapter 7 on Mechanical Cleaning Methods.
The most important point to remember is that all costs are site-specific and, therefore,
can be influenced in different ways by the same factors depending upon the
circumstances. Consequently, extrapolation from generic data can be misleading. This
section will include examples of the types of calculations necessary to analyze the costs
of biofouling. Actual calculations are best done with the aid of computers which can
take into account site-specific factors related to the physical plant, and temperature,
time-of-day and dispatch costs related to the season and utility load.
Unit Performance Degradation
By controlling the backpressure at the LP turbine exhaust, the condenser directly

influences the overall unit performance. Therefore, the LP turbine and the condenser
are jointly designed to achieve an optimal balance between capital and anticipated
operating costs for certain sets of conditions; operation at other conditions normally
comes at the expense of a unit performance penalty.
When the condenser heat transfer is reduced due to tubeside microbiological fouling,
the turbine backpressure increases and the unit performance declines. In addition,
condenser microbiofouling increases the tubeside resistance to cooling water flow,
causing an increase in pump power requirements. Both of these effects influence unit
performance and can be expressed in terms of energy penalties.
5-1
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Heat Rate Penalty
Heat rate is the most commonly used measure of a unit's overall performance. Unit heat
rate is defined as the ratio of the energy input to the energy output, which is a ratio of
the fuel consumed to the amount of net electrical power produced, expressed as
Btu/kWh. Heat rate directly affects power production costs, since fuel costs represent a
significant portion of the total power production cost at fossil-fueled units. As a result, a
loss in condenser performance is frequently calculated in terms of excess fuel costs. (See
Chapter 4 for further detail on condenser performance factor calculations.)
Condenser performance can be expressed as the ratio of the expected (theoretical) rate
of heat transfer from the steam to the cooling water under a given set of conditions and
the actual (as measured) rate of heat transfer. Mathematically, then, the condenser
performance factor can be calculated as UA/UE, where:
UA = Q/[A x LMTD]
with UA = actual heat transfer rate (Btu/hr ft2 °F)

Q = condenser heat duty (Btu/hr)
A = total effective surface area (ft2)
LMTD = log mean temperature difference (°F)
and
LMTD = [T2 - T1]/[ln{(TS- T1)/(TS - T2)}]
with T1 = inlet cooling water temperature

T2 = outlet cooling water temperature
TS = saturated steam temperature
and
UE = C÷V×F1 x F2 x F3
with UE = expected heat transfer rate (Btu/hr ft2 °F)

C = tube diameter coefficient (HEI standard)
V = tubeside cooling water velocity (ft/sec)
F1 = inlet cooling water temperature correction (HEI)
F2 = tube material and gauge correction (HEI)
F3 = cleanliness factor, from design value
These equations illustrate the number of parameters that can influence condenser
performance. For example, the impact of microbiological fouling is reflected in the
changes in the condenser cleanliness factor (F3).
5-2
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
As mentioned in Chapter 4 on Microbiofouling Detection and Monitoring, using these

equations to determine condenser performance requires extensive and precise data
collection. An example worksheet for calculating the condenser performance factor is
presented in Appendix A. Although the results are definitive, for the purpose of
estimating microbiofouling costs, such a comprehensive approach may not be
warranted. Fortunately, turbine and condenser manufacturers normally provide
graphical information that simplifies the site-specific estimation of condenser
performance penalties within certain assumptions.1
Figure 5-1 shows a set of curves developed by the condenser manufacturer for Duke
Power Company's 860-MW units at the Oconee Nuclear Station.2 These curves show the
expected turbine backpressure as a function of inlet cooling water temperature and
condenser heat duty (in this case, expressed as steam flow assuming a constant
enthalpy loss). The inlet cooling water temperature is important because it directly
influences the turbine exhaust steam temperature, and, hence, the turbine backpressure.
Figure 5-1
Expected turbine backpressure as a function of condenser heat duty (steam flow) and
inlet cooling water temperature.2
Equally important is the fact that seasonal variations in inlet cooling water temperature
are in many respects beyond .the control of the power plant staff. For once-through
cooling systems, the source water will naturally be cooler in the winter and warmer in
the summer For recirculated cooling systems, atmospheric conditions (dry-bulb and
wet-bulb temperatures) can limit the ability of a cooling tower to provide adequate heat
rejection, particularly in the summer when the recirculating water temperature tends to
be higher.
5-3
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Figure 5-2 shows a turbine manufacturer's backpressure correction factors, in this

instance, also for Duke Power Company's Oconee Station units.3 These correction
factors enable one to calculate the "deviation from bogey" estimates described earlier in
Chapter 4. An example o£ such a calculation and the associated performance penalty
cost is summarized as Case 1.
Figure 5-2
Turbine backpressure correction factors.3
CASE 1:
CALCULATING A HEAT RATE PENALTY AND
PERFORMANCE PENALTY COST
A 750-MW baseload unit has LP turbine and main steam condenser characteristics
identical to those shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 (turbine backpressure of 1.50 in. Hg, abs.
at 10.9 Mlbs/hr steam flow for full load and an inlet cooling water temperature of
61 °F).
5-4
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
During a regularly scheduled outage in early March, the condenser tubes were
manually cleaned with water-driven plastic scrapers (see Chapter 7) to remove a thin
film of slime which could be seen from both the inlet and outlet waterboxes. When the
unit returned to baseload service, the turbine backpressure was measured at 1.75 in. Hg,
abs.; the inlet cooling water temperature was 65°F
Over the next several months, the turbine backpressure showed a steadily increasing
trend, until it measured 2.8 in. Hg, abs. by mid-July. At that time, the inlet cooling water
temperature was 75° Condenser microbiofouling was suspected. In order to evaluate
microbiofouling control options, it was necessary to estimate the anticipated heat rate
penalty and associated performance penalty cost.
Heat Rate Penalty
First, calculate the baseline performance of the "clean" condenser, Using Figure 5-1, at
full Ioad (10,9 Mlbs/hr of steam flow) and an inlet cooling water temperature of 65°F,
the expected turbine backpressure is 1.67 in. Hg, abe. Based on Figure 5-2, this
represents a 0.2% change in unit heat rate. However, the measured turbine
backpressure was 1.75 in, Hg, abs., which would result in a 0.26% change in unit heat
rate. Therefore, even the "clean" condenser has a 0.06% (0.26-0.2) unit heat rate penalty
(possibly due to shellside air inleakages and blanketing and/or steamside condenser
tube corrosion).
Second, calculate the present condenser performance. Again, using Figure 5-1 for full
Ioad and an inlet cooling water temperature of 75°F, the expected turbine backpressure
is 2.5 in. Hg, abs. From Figure 5-2, this corresponds to a heat rate penalty of 1.75%.
However, at the measured turbine back-pressure of 2.8 in. Hg, abs., the heat rate
penalty is 2.5%.
Therefore, the heat rate penalty attributable to the decline in condenser performance
can be calculated as follows:
Penalty at measured backpressure 2.50%
Penalty expected for cooling water temp. - 1.75%
Penalty associated with "clean" condenser - 0.06%
0.69%
Performance Penalty Cost
The energy penalty cost depends upon a number of factors, such as unit fuel, heat rate
and capacity factor. For fossil fueled units, the cost can be directly related to the heat
content of the fuel (Btu/lb), the amount of fuel consumed (lb), and the cost of the fuel
(S/lb).
5-5
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Assuming this unit has an average unit heat rate of 9,600 Btu/kWh (the industry
average is 10,250 Btu/kWh)4, a 100% daily capacity factor for a base-load unit and coal
costs of $1.50/MBtu, then the energy penalty cost can be calculated as follows:
Energy Penalty Cost = Unit Capacity × Capacity Factor ×
Heat Rate × Heat Rate Penalty ×
Fuel Cost × Conversion Factors
or
Energy Penalty Cost = (750,000 kW) × (1.00) ×
(9,600 Btu/kWh) × (0.0069) ×
($1.50/MBtu) × (24 h/d) ×
(1.0 MBtu/1,000,000 Btu)
= $1,790/d
On the average, fuel accounts for 78% of the production expenses at coal-fired power
plants.5 Consequently, there are other related expenses that would increase the total
daily performance penalty cost on a "power production" basis to $2,290 ($1,790/0.78).
For nuclear-fueled units, energy penalty costs are not meaningful since these units
operate near 100% power flux and the rate of fuel use cannot be increased. Instead, a
total performance penalty cost can be estimated by using the heat rate penalty as a
pseudo derating factor that can be applied to the unit-specific cost of power production.
If this information is not available for the specific unit, power production costs can be
estimated from the following 1990 industry averages6:
Coal $20.24/MWh
Oil $40.81/MWh
Gas $31.06/MWh
Nuclear $21.89/MWh
Performance Penalty Cost = Unit Capacity × Capacity Factor ×
Heat Rate Penalty ×
Power Production Cost × Conversion Factors
or
Performance Penalty Cost = (750 Mw) × (1.00) × (0.0069) ×
($21.89/MWh) × (24 h/d)
= $2,720/d
Performance penalty costs for fossil-fueled units can also be calculated using power
production costs. However, this estimating approach is less site-specific in that it
eliminates the actual values for fuel cost, unit heat rate and other related expenses. For
5-6
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
example, if the average power production cost for a coal-fired unit ($20.24) was used to
calculate the performance penalty cost of the fossil-fueled unit described earlier, the
estimate would be $2,510/d (9.6% higher than when site-specific information was
used).
Figure 5-3 presents other generic data showing the relationship between the increase in
turbine backpressure (condenser pressure deviation from design) and the annual fuel
cost.7 However, Case 1 illustrates to some extent the difficulty documented by others8 in
accurately estimating performance degradation costs based on generic data. At a
minimum, extrapolation of these data to site-specific situations would require
"correction factors" for unit capacity, unit capacity factor and fuel cost; it would be
impossible to correct for design turbine backpressure, unit load (steam flow), inlet
cooling water temperature and unit heat rate or the time dependency of any of these
data.
Figure 5-3
Increase in annual fuel cost associated with increase in turbine backpressure for a
typical fossil fuel power plant.7
5-7
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Clearly, the need for correction factors and extrapolation of data demonstrate the
unreliability of using generic data to derive site-specific microbiofouling cost estimates.
Therefore, the use of generic cost data should be limited to illustrative examples and
broad, industry-wide generalizations, and should not be considered a reliable substitute
for site-specific information.
Individual power plants often use computer modeling methods to predict performance
degradation for their site-specific conditions. These models are the only reliable way to
find the true costs of biofouling for a given plant, with site-specific factors for the plant,
and seasonal and time-of-day considerations included in the analysis.
In 1989, a northeast utility conducted a study in an attempt to more accurately assess

the economic benefits of improving condenser cleanliness factors. The utility was
considering installing a full-scale advanced targeted chlorination system for a 335-MW
fossil (oil) generating system.
The station kept detailed records of monthly averaged condenser performance data,
including cleanliness factors, which ranged from 60 to 70%. Using an analysis similar to
that described in Case 1, the study indicated that an improvement in condenser
cleanliness factor to 90% from the low value of 60%, would result in an increase in
annual heat rate at the station of 55.3 Btu/kWh. At 1989 fuel costs, the improved
performance, averaged over a typical year of operation, would result in an annual fuel
cost savings of $204,000. The same calculations, assuming an improvement in
cleanliness factor from 70%, would produce an annual savings of $107,400. As a result
of this study, the utility decided to retrofit a unit with the advanced targeted
chlorination system.
Pump Power Penalty
In addition to the impact on unit heat rate, condenser microbiological fouling can also
increase cooling water pumping costs. The biofilm reduces the tube inside diameter
and, hence, the effective cross-sectional area for flow. To achieve the same flow, the
tubeside velocity must increase. This results in a pressure drop increase, requiring
greater pumping power to overcome the additional system head.
A biofilm will also increase the inside surface roughness of a tube. As discussed in
Chapter 2, a biofilm is not a rigid material, but an extracellular polymeric substance
(EPS) that behaves as a gel. Thus, the biofilm-water interface is a compliant surface that
tends to "snap back" when deformed by fluid shear forces so that the mechanical energy
in the fluid is absorbed by the biofilm. The effect is to significantly increase frictional
drag when water is flowing past the surface.9 Figure 5-4 shows data for tubeside friction
factor as function of Reynolds Number (Re) and biofilm thickness (Lf)10. An example of
a pump power penalty and cost calculation is summarized as Case 2.
5-8
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Figure 5-4
Tubeside friction factor as function of Reynolds Number (Re) and biofilm thickness
(Lf).10
CASE 2:
CALCULATING A COOLING WATER PUMP POWER
PENALTY AND COST
Unit 5 at Mississippi Power Company's Plant Watson is a 500 MW baseload unit with a
two-pass main steam condenser containing 12,330 90-10 copper-nickel tubes per pass.
Each tube is 34 feet long with an outside diameter of 1 inch and an inside diameter of
0.918 inches. Inlet cooling water is provided by two vertical mixed flow pumps at a
nominal flow rate of 86,000 gpm per pump. The nominal tubeside cooling water
velocity is 6.79 ft/sec. Using these design data and performance curves provided by the
cooling water pump manufacturer, the plant staff can estimate the tubeside pressure
drop, pump power penalty and associated cost for an assumed biofilm that is uniformly
5 mils (0.005 in.) thick.
The tubeside pressure drop can be calculated using standard transport phenomena
equations.12 For example:
∆P/L = {[2 × ρ × V2 × f]/D} × Conversion Factors
with ∆P/L = Pressure drop per unit length (ft H2O/ft tube)
ρ = Density of water (62.4 lb/ft3)
V = Tubeside cooling water velocity (ft/sec)
f = Friction factor
D = Tube inside diameter (in.)
5-9
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Assuming that the cooling water flow rate remains constant, the tubeside cooling water
velocity can be calculated as a function of the effective tube inside diameter by the
following equation:
Velocity = [Tubeside Flow Rate/Tube Inside Cross Sectional Area)] ×
Conversion Factors
or
Velocity = [{(172,000 gpm)/(12,330 tubes)}/
{π (0.918 -.010 in.)2/4}] × (0.1337 ft3/gal) ×
(144 in2/ft2) × (0.01667 min/sec)
= 6.91 ft/sec
The friction factor is an empirical, dimensionless number that quantifies to some degree
the relative roughness of a surface. For turbulent flows in long, smooth tubes (as in
clean condenser tubes), the Blasius formula can normally be used to estimate the
friction factor, as follows:
f = 0.0791/[ρ x D × V/ µ] 0.25
with µ = Viscosity of water (0.000672 lb/ft-sec)
Then, for the clean condenser:
f = 0.0791/[{(62.4 lb/ft3) × (0.918 in.) × (6.79 ft/sec) /
(0.000672 lb/ft-sec)} × (1 ft/12 in.)] 0.25
= 0.0053
Because the nature of a biofilm is very site-specific, determining a suitable friction factor
for a microbiologically fouled condenser is difficult. One source has plotted
experimental data (see Figure 5-4) showing the biofilm friction factor as a function of
biofilm thickness and Reynolds Number Re.10 The Reynolds Number is another
dimensionless value given by the following equation:
Re = [ρ × D × V]/µ
For the fouled condenser:

Re = [{(62.4 lb/ft3) × (0.918-0.010 in.) × (6.91 ft/sec)} /
(0.000672 lb/ft-sec)] × (1 ft/12 in.)
= 48,550
5-10
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Using Figure 5-4, the estimated friction factor* for a 5 mil (127 micron) biofilm is 0.0075.
Substituting these values into the first equation, gives the tubeside pressure drop for a
clean and fouled condenser:
∆P/L = {[2 × (62.4 lb/ft3) × (6.79 ft/sec)2 × 0.0053] /
(0.918 in.)) × (12 in./ft) × [0.000479 ft H2O /(lb/ft-sec)]
0.191 ft H2O /ft of tube
so that
∆P = 0.198 ft H2O/ft of tube × 34 ft/tube × 2 tubes/pass
= 13.0 ft H2O
For the fouled condenser,

∆P/L = {[2 × (62.4 lb/ft3) × (6.91 ft/sec)2 × 0.0075] /
(0.918-0.010 in.)} × (12 in./ft) ×
[0.000479 ft H2O/(lb/ft-sec)]
= 0.283 ft H2O/ft of tube
and
∆P = 0.281 ft H2O/ft of tube x 34 ft/tube x 2 tubes/pass
= 19.2 ft H2O
*Note that the friction factors presented in this source and in Figure 5-4 are civil
engineering friction factors, These factors are four times larger than the Fanning friction
factor (f) used primarily in chemical engineering and throughout this chapter.
Therefore, friction factors presented in Figure 5-4 must be divided by 4.0 before being
used in the calculations discussed in this chapter.
Therefore, the increase in pump head is 6.2 ft H2O (19.2-13.0). Based on pump
performance curves supplied by the manufacturer,13 the increased head will require an
additional 47 Hp in pump shaft horsepower or 35 kW in electrical energy.
The daily energy penalty cost for the additional pump power necessary to
accommodate the increased tubeside pressure drop can be calculated as in Case 1 using
the following equation:
Pump Power Penalty Cost = Energy Penalty × Capacity Factor ×
Replacement Power Cost ×
Conversion Factors
or
Pump Power Penalty Cost = (35 kW) × (1.00) × ($20.24/Mwh)*
× (24 h/d) × (0.001 MW/kW)
= $17.00/d
5-11
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
∗
Note that this is the industry average power production cost for coal-fired units; actual
Plant Watson Unit 5 data should be used if available.
An alternate approach for calculating the increase in tubeside pressure drop due to
fouling is outlined by the Heat Exchange Institute.14 The HEI procedure also makes use
of empirical equations and experimental data. However, the HEI procedure assumes
that the biofilm does not alter the relative roughness of the inner tube surface and,
therefore, ignores friction factor effects. Instead, it focuses exclusively on the effect of
reduced tube cross-sectional area (diameter). Since biofilms are known to cause
pronounced increases in the fluid frictional resistance, 15 the HEI procedure may
provide conservative ∆P estimates and have limited applicability.
Reported biofilm thicknesses range from 0.4 to 40.0 mils (0.0004 to 0.04 inches).16 But, as
Case 2 illustrates, a relatively thin biofilm of 5.0 mils will produce a measurable change
in condenser tubeside pressure drop. In fact, if a change in condenser tubeside pressure
drop of 0.5 in Hg (0.57 ft H2O) is sufficient to monitor biofouling (see Table 4-1), then
under the conditions described in Case 2, it should be possible to detect a biofilm that is
only 1-2 mils thick, and quite possibly at a very early stage in the biofilm development.
Normally, the condenser tubeside pressure drop is measured directly in the field (see
Chapter 4). However, Case 2 describes methods for calculating tubeside pressure drop
for a uniform biofilm of assumed thickness.
Clearly, the energy penalties associated with increased pump power requirements are
substantially less than the energy penalties that result from reduced heat transfer and
increased turbine backpressures. Therefore, although condenser measurements
represent a sensitive and reliable means of detecting and monitoring microbiological
fouling, increased turbine backpressures and the associated heat rate penalties will be
more important in evaluating the economics of any cleaning and/or treatment options.
Loss of Unit Availability
Condenser microbiofouling can contribute to loss of unit availability in two ways. First,
as the unit's ability to produce electricity decreases due to reduced condenser
performance, replacement power must be purchased. Second, when the condenser
performance has degraded to a point that continued operation is not practical, an
unscheduled partial or full unit outage may be required for condenser cleaning.
In addition, any unscheduled outages that can be directly related to condenser repairs
required because of microbiofouling can result in loss of unit availability. For instance,
if a unit was brought off-line to locate and plug a number of leaking tubes, and
microbiologically influenced corrosion (MIC) was identified as the cause, then the
5-12
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
associated loss of unit availability could be directly attributed to microbiofouling. Such

cases are not common and are extremely site-specific.
Replacement Power Costs
When condenser microbiofouling degrades a unit's performance, the utility incurs not
only the cost related to the increased heat rate (an energy penalty based on fuel cost),
but also the cost of replacing "lost" capacity. To meet customer demand, the utility must
either purchase power from an external source or generate equivalent power internally
(presumably at less efficient, more costly plants).
Case 3 summarizes one method for estimating replacement power costs. The method is
simple in that it assumes a single cost for replacement power. However, the sources of
replacement power typically vary by time of year, and the prices are not
straightforward to calculate. Dispatch costs vary widely depending upon the size and
the nature of the dispatch pool. Therefore, when estimating replacement power costs, it
is not only important to have site-specific data, but system-specific data as well.
CASE 3:
CALCULATING REPLACEMENT POWER COSTS
For the unit described in Case 1, assume two replacement power cost scenarios:
A−adequate replacement power is available within the utility's system from a unit with
similar fuel cost but a higher heat rate (9,900 Btu/kWh); and B−the utility must
purchase replacement power from an external source.
Scenario A
Based on unit-specific data, costs for replacement power produced within the utility's
system can be calculated as follows:
Replacement Power Cost = Energy Penalty × Heat Rate ×
Fuel Cost × Conversion Factors
so that
Replacement Power Cost = [(750,000 kW) × (1.00) × (0.0069)] ×
(9,900 Btu/kWh) × ($1.50/MBtu) ×
(1 MBtu/1,000,000 Btu) × (24 h/d)
= $1,840/d
5-13
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
As in Case 1, the total replacement power cost must consider all costs of power
production and, therefore, would be $2,360/d ($1,840/0.78).
5-14
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Another method for arriving at the same cost is to first calculate the unit-specific power
production cost for the replacement unit, and then apply this factor to the energy
penalty experienced by the fouled unit, as follows:
Power Production Cost = [Unit Heat Rate × Fuel Cost/0.78] ×
Conversion Factors
or
Power Production Cost = [(9,900 Btu/kWh) × ($1.50/Mbtu)/0.78]
× (1 MBtu/1,000,000 Btu) ×
(1,000 kWh/MWh)
= $19.04/Mwh
then
Replacement Power Cost = Energy Penalty × Power Production
Costs × Conversion Factors ×
Replacement Power Cost
[(750 Mw) × (1.00) × (0.0069)]
($19.04/MWh) × (24 h/d)
= $2,360/d
Scenario B
Although this calculation is essentially identical to the second approach used in

Scenario A, the accuracy is not as good unless the cost of external power is known. If
this cost is unknown, then the average power production costs )resented in Case 1 can
be used. However, it might be prudent to add a premium (perhaps 10%) to account for
the source utility's profit. For example,
Replacement Power Cost = Energy Penalty × Power Purchase
Price × Conversion Factors
or
Replacement Power Cost = [(750 Mw) × (1.00) × (0.0069)] ×
[($20.24/MWh) × (1.1)] × (24 h/d )
= $2,770/d
5-15
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Unscheduled Outage Costs
Unscheduled outage costs result when a utility is forced to bring an operating unit off-
line for unplanned corrective maintenance. In the case of condenser' microbiofouling,
the outage is most often associated with mechanically cleaning the condenser to restore
unit performance.
The elements and associated costs of mechanical cleaning are discussed in Chapter 7.
However, there are additional costs connected with condenser cleaning when the
activity is conducted at an unscheduled time. These costs are directly related to the
replacement power that must be provided in lieu of the normally operating unit.
Calculating an unscheduled outage cost is very similar to estimating a replacement

power cost with two exceptions. First, the cost is based on the actual power production
capability of the unit at the time of the outage instead of the energy penalty. Second, the
cost is determined for a specified period of time (outage duration) instead of a unit time
basis (such as daily or weekly). These differences are obvious in the calculations
presented in Case 4.
CASE 4:
CALCULATING UNSCHEDULED UNIT OUTAGE COSTS
For the unit described in Case 1, the heat rate penalty had increased to 1.25% by late
August. At that time, the utility decided to conduct an unscheduled mechanical
cleaning of the condenser. The entire cleaning process, from on-line to off-line to on-
line, would require 18 hours. Dispatch had arranged to purchase external replacement
power at a cost of $20.00/MWh.
The unscheduled unit outage cost can be calculated as follows:

Outage Cost = Unit Capacity × Performance Factor ×
Outage Duration × Replacement Power Cost
so that
Outage Cost = (750 Mw) × (1.0−0.0125) × (18 hr) × ($20.00/Mwh)
= $267,0OO
Attributing unit outage costs to microbiofouling is valid only if the unit is scheduled to
be in service. For example, peaking units are scheduled to operate only during specific
times of high demand; occasionally these units are off-line (spinning reserve) for certain
portions of the day (such as from 10:00 pm until 6:00 am) or certain days of the week
(such as Saturday and Sunday). If a complete or partial condenser cleaning can be
5-16
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
accomplished during these off-line periods, then assigning outage costs to a condenser
microbiofouling problem would be inappropriate (although the actual cleaning costs
are still directly related to microbiofouling).
The modular nature (divided waterboxes) of most condensers permits inspection, leak
detection, tube plugging and cleaning while the unit is on-line. The magnitude of the
time and disruption of a partial outage depends on the plant and condenser design. The
cost of partial outages is usually calculated after determining the optimum schedule for
condenser cleaning.
When establishing a cleaning schedule, there are three major factors to consider: the
cost of cleaning, the unit performance (heat rate) penalty due to fouling (not cleaning),
and the loss of unit availability. Up to a point, the ongoing (average) unit performance
can be expected to improve with more frequent condenser cleaning. However, more
cleanings increase the total cost of cleaning. Therefore, minimizing the combined costs
of these three factors will determine the optimum number of condenser cleanings in a
given time period (frequency of cleaning).
As might be expected, the optimization of these cost factors is extremely site and system
specific, and can become quite complex. Several manual17 and computerized18
techniques have been developed to assist individual plants in making this assessment.
An additional consideration is incorporation of new condenser cleaning technologies
which can improve the effectiveness of each cleaning and/or reduce the total number of
cleanings required in a given period of time.
Such a consideration was included in an analysis conducted by New England Power

Company to determine potential cost savings with improved condenser cleanliness
factors at its Brayton Point Unit 2. The study was performed as part of a full-scale
demonstration of fixed-nozzle targeted chlorination.
Brayton Point Unit 2 is a 250-MW fossil-fueled unit where the primary fouling problem
in the circulating water system is microbiofouling, resuiting in low cleanliness factors.
Due to regulatory limitations on chlorine concentrations and treatment duration, the
microbiofouling problem was not effectively controlled by the bulk chlorination
program.
5-17
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
Based on the demonstrated 15-20% improvement in condenser cleanliness factors with a

targeted chlorination system over its 20-year economic life, New England Power
estimated substantial cost savings:
Reduced power, energy replacement costs $1,200,000
(with one less on-line brush cleaning per year)
Heat rate improvement $255,000
Increased generation $770,000
Reduced chlorine consumption $170,000
$2,395,000
It is important to remember that once a cleaning schedule has been established, the
scheduled cleanings become an accepted element of the microbiofouling control
program. Consequently, they cannot be considered as outage costs for unscheduled
condenser-related maintenance as described in Case 4.
Improving Cost Estimates
As previously mentioned throughout this chapter, accurate site-specific and system-

specific data are critical for the calculation of reliable condenser microbiofouling costs.
The use of "generic" industry data (such as in Cases 1-4) should be avoided whenever
possible. Even the use of unit-specific assumptions can produce misleading results.
For example, Case 1 demonstrates the importance of using inlet cooling water
temperature to determine the expected turbine backpressure when calculating the heat
rate penalty associated with a decline in condenser performance. While the calculated
heat rate penalty was suitable for estimating the immediate performance energy penalty
cost, using this value to estimate an annual performance energy penalty cost assumes
that the heat rate penalty would not change. Such an assumption is incorrect because
available inlet cooling water temperatures will vary throughout the year.
Similarly, other unit-specific data (such as capacity factor and fuel cost) and system-
specific data (such as replacement power cost) will vary over time throughout the year.
Consequently, the relatively simple calculations presented in this chapter as example
cases become very complex, time-dependent computations when estimating condenser
microbiofouling costs over an extended period (several months or years).
5-18
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
References
1. R.B. Thompson and J.A. Mathews. "Power Plant Operations and the Role of
Condenser Tube Biofouling." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control Symposium,
Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1980. CS-1450, p. 16.
2. Ibid., p. 20.
3. Ibid., p. 21.
4. S.H. Kuehn, "EPRI Launches Nuclear Heat Rate Improvement Program." Power
Engineering, 96(5):10, 1992, p. 10.
5. "1990 Coal Plant O&M Costs Up, Nuclear Down, Says UDI," Power Engineering,
95(12):5, 1991, p.
6. Ibid.
7. Y.G. Mussalli, Condenser-targeted Chlorination Design. Final Report. Palo Alto,

Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, October 1985. CS-4279, p. 1-11.
8. T.O. Holderer, S.L. Williams, and L.D. Buckels, "The Effects of Condenser Biofouling
on Plant Performance," in Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control−State-of-the-
Art Symposium, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1985. CS-4339,
p. 2-69.
9. W.G. Characklis, Biofilms. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990, p. 115.
10. W.G. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., p. 297.
11. T.O. Holderer, op. cit., p. 2-62.
12. R.B. Byrd, W.E. Stewart, and E.N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1960, p. 182.
13. T.O. Holderer, op. cit., p. 2-63.
14. Standards for Steam Surface Condensers, New York: Heat Exchange Institute, 1978,
p. 5.
15. W.G. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., p. 290.
16. Ibid., p. 110.
5-19
10937752
Costs Of Biofouling
17. R.J. Bell and R.A. Nery, "An Engineering Approach to A Cost-Effective Schedule for
Condenser Cleaning," in Proceedings: Fossil Plant Heat Rate Improvement
Workshop, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1981. CS-2180.
18. J. Koch, C.J. Haynes, and Y.G. Mussalli, "Economic Scheduling of Condenser
Cleaning Based on Computerized Thermal Performance Monitoring," in
Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control−State-of-the-Art, Palo Alto, Calif.:
5-20
10937752
6
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Introduction
Power plant engineers must consider a number of factors when using chemicals to
control microbiological fouling of main steam condenser cooling-water systems. These
factors include:
• condenser cooling-system design and operation
• biocontrol agents
• specific restrictive environmental regulations
• chemical application methods−dosage/duration/frequency of use
• safety and exposure
Cooling System Design Influence
There are two basic types of utility condenser cooling systems: once-through and
recirculating. In once-through cooling systems, cool water passes through the condenser
and then discharges to a river, lake, or ocean without recycle or reuse. In recirculating
cooling systems, water passes through the condenser to a cooling tower or spray pond,
where evaporation reduces the temperature before the water recycles back to the
condenser. Some water is discharged from the system as blowdown. Makeup water is
added to offset evaporation and blowdown.
The chemicals added to once-through systems are not recycled, thus limiting the type
and amount of chemicals that can be discharged. A major advantage of recirculating
systems is that the chemicals remain within the system continuously, thus reducing the
amounts needed for biofouling control and reducing the quantities discharged from the
system. Both types of systems have chemical discharge limits, but recirculating systems
discharge a lower volume of chemicals and water than once-through systems. Also,
restricting the discharge of cooling-system blowdown for several hours to allow for
reaction and decay of biocides can reduce chemical discharge levels substantially. Thus,
recirculating systems have considerably more flexibility in terms of the types and
amounts of chemical treatment that can be employed economically.
6-1
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Microbiological fouling control is primarily applied to the main steam condenser but its
use is also often very important for other heat transfer equipment in the cooling-water
circuit, including auxiliary heat exchangers, oil coolers, and the cooling tower itself.
This is especially important if a film pack fill is utilized in the cooling tower.1
Basic Biofouling Control
A chemical microbiological fouling control program consists of periodically adding one

or several biocides to all of the water passing through the condenser. Restrictions on
chemical discharge are discussed in Chapter 3. These restrictions can limit the types and
concentrations of biocides and must be reviewed prior to their chemical use. Monitoring
condenser cleanliness helps determine the necessary dosage, duration, frequency and
type of biocide application. This and other monitoring methods are discussed in
Chapter 4.
Biocides are chemicals that are toxic to organisms. To be effective in controlling biofilm
formation, all biocides require adequate dosage, contact time with the biomass and
frequent application. Generally, these toxic chemicals are grouped into two categories:
oxidizing and nonoxidizing.
Table 6-1 provides general information on the effectiveness of various microbiocides in

controlling microorganisms and the limits of the chemical application.
Table 6-1
Typical Microbiocides.
Organism Chlorine Bromine Quats Organo/
Tin Quats
Bacteria
Nonspore Slime E E E E
Formers
Spore Slime Formers P P E E
Iron Depositors E E E E
Corrosive (SRB) N N G E
Fungus P P P G
Algae G P G E
Comments Oxidizing.Corros Oxidizing. Cationic. Causes Cationic.
ive, Dangerous to Corrosive. foam which reacts Foam reacts
handle. Dangerous to with inhibit ors with
Delignifies tower handle. Delignifies inhibitors
wood. Loses tower wood. Restricted in
effectiveness Effective above pH some areas
above pH 7.5. 7.5 and with
and with ammonia.
ammonia.
6-2
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Organism Isothlazolone Bromo-Organic Thiocarbamates Aldehydes

Bacteria
Nonspore Slime E G E G
Formers
Spore Slime Formers E P G G
Iron Depositors G G G E
Corrosive (SRB) G E G G
Fungus G N G G
Algae E P N G
Comments Dangerous to Starts to degrade Anionic. May cause Deactivated
handle. Should above pH 7.5. Glycol effluent disposal by reducing
be fed with so[vent may problems. Corrosive conditions.
special contribute to rapid to copper-alloys.
equipment growth.
KEY: E = Excellent G = Good P = Poor N = Not Effective
Oxidizing biocides, as the name implies, oxidize or "break down" the microbiological
fouling deposits by oxidizing the organic component of the microorganisms. This kills
or deactivates the microorganisms. The most commonly used oxidizing biocide for
condenser biofouling control is chlorine applied as a gas, liquid or solid-release
chemical. Other common oxidants are bromine (available from several chemicals) and
chlorine dioxide. Hydrogen peroxide and' ozone are other potential control agents, but
they are used infrequently in power plant applications. Table 6-2 compares the most
common oxidizing biocides.
Table 6-2
Commonly Used Oxidizing Biocides
Chlorine-Based Bromine-Based Chlorine Dioxide
Application Fed primarily as a gas or an Fed as aqueous Must be generated at
Methods/ aqueous solution solution or generated the site and mixed with
Requirements via oxidant reaction water
with bromide salt
Active Species Hypochlorous acid and Hypobromous acid Chlorine. dioxide (ClO2)
hypo-chiorite ion and hypobromite ion
Dosage/ Usually 0.2 mg/L TRC for 2 Usually 0.1 mg/L A residual of 0.05-0.1
Duration hours per day (4 times for 30 TRO for 2 hours per mg/L for 1 hour per
minutes each)* day (4 times each) day (4 times for 15
minutes each)
Cost-Effectiveness** Usually most cost effective Generally 50-100% Generally 700-800%
more costly than more costly than
chlorine chlorine
6-3
10937752
Chemical Treatment
*TRC (total residual chlorine) is the value obtained using the forward amperometric
titration method for total residual chlorine.
**Each biocide requires site-specific evaluation to determine the most cost-effective

dosage and duration. (See case studies later in this chapter for further discussion of
cost-effectiveness.)
Nonoxidizing biocides, the second group, are systemic "poisons" that kill the
microbiological organisms by interfering with their metabolism. The nonoxidizing
biocides do not remove the biomass. However, as discussed in Chapter 2 on biofilm
growth, some of the dead biomass often sloughs off the heat transfer surfaces and is
flushed from the tubes by the cooling-water turbulence. There are many different
nonoxidizing biocides, even mixtures of several, in a single product. Some typical
nonoxidizing biocides are complex fatty acid quaternary ammonium compounds
(known as "quats"), organic halogen compounds (such as brominated, proprionamide),
sulfur-based products (such as thiocarbarnates), and organic chemicals containing
several basic functional groups (such as isothiazolone).
Appropriate safety equipment such as face mask, eye goggles, rubber gloves, and apron
should be worn when handling any equipment storing or feeding nonoxidizing
biocides. Some of the nonoxidizing biocides are extremely irritating. They can penetrate
clothing, shoes, or leather and are rapidly absorbed though the skin. Some emit toxic
irritating vapors. Great care should be taken in handling all nonoxidizing biocides.
Consult the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and product label for specific safety
handling and spill precautions.
All biocides have specific properties that influence their effectiveness under different
conditions. Thus, the final criterion for use is site specific, and we will discuss each
biocide separately, in terms of:
• Advantages and disadvantages
• Method of application
• Concentration and application frequency
General Application and Delivery Methods
For condenser biofouling control, biocides are usually applied periodically. The
duration of the biocide feed varies considerably from site to site and even from unit to
unit at the same plant site, i.e., from very brief, intermittent feeds to continuous feed. In
addition, application frequency and duration may vary seasonally due to water nutrient
levels, temperature, and the organism loadings in the water and on the condenser tubes.
The dosage and frequency must be at the level that will maintain efficient condenser
operation while meeting applicable regulations for biocide discharge.
6-4
10937752
Chemical Treatment
The site-specific National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge

limit is often the limiting factor in choosing the optimum biofouling control procedures
for a particular site. However, a variance in procedure might be possible if the
condensers are severely biofouled and/or the water supply is highly contaminated.
Oxidizing biocides are usually the primary biocontrol agents for once-through and
recirculating condenser cooling-water systems. Non-oxidizing biocides seldom are used
in once-through condenser cooling-water systems, except for special applications, such
as macrofouling control.
In recirculating cooling-water systems, particularly cooling towers, a "slug" addition of

nonoxidizing biocides is common as an "assist" or "booster" to the oxidizing biocide.
This is used to control certain types of microbiological organisms not easily controlled
with the oxidant. Sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB), some algae, and fungi are typical
examples.
The dosage is usually based on the system capacity. The frequency of addition may be
weekly or less often. If the nonoxidizing biocide is the primary biocontrol, then
application and dosage may be greater. Since cooling-tower systems recirculate but
retain the cooling water, slug addition provides extended contact time with the biocide.
Effectiveness of the biocide depends on its properties. These properties often are a
function of system water pH, hardness, turbidity, the type of microorganisms, and
degradation of the biocide within the system that can be affected. Depending on the
biocide and its toxicity, a detoxification step might be required prior to discharging
treated waters from a recirculating system.
Oxidizing Biocides
Several different oxidizing biocides are used for controlling condenser biofouling.
However, chlorine, added as chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite, is the most
commonly used biocide in power plant applications for control of fouling by
microorganisms.z Another oxidant, chlorine dioxide, is a special and specific compound
quite different from chlorine. Chlorine dioxide is discussed later in this chapter.
The other predominant oxidizing biocides are bromine-based compounds. They have
seen increasing use in utility application. Although a few other oxidants have been used
occasionally for utility plant condenser treatment, they are generally considered
experimental. These oxidants are ozone and hydrogen peroxide, used alone or with
ozone. These rarely used oxidants will be discussed at the end of this chapter, in the
Recent Developments section.
6-5
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Chlorine-Based Oxidizing Biocides
All of these compounds release chlorine-based chemicals as the oxidant into the cooling
water. Table 6-3 shows the most common gas, liquid, and dry compounds.
Table 6-3
Comparison of Most Common Chlorine Compounds
Pounds Required to Cost Comparison for 1

Available Provide 1 Pound of Pound of Chlorine*
Compound Form Chlorine Chlorine
Chlorine Gas Gas 100% 1.0 1.0
10% Sodium Liquid 10% 10.4 5.3

Hypochlorite
12% Sodium Liquid 12% 8.7 4.7

Hypochlorite
Calcium Dry 65% 1.5 8.2

Hypochlorite
*Based on average 1992 prices
The chlorine released from all of these compounds reacts with water to form
hypochlorous acid (HOCl), hypochlorite ion (OCl-), or a combination of these
compounds. These species are the biocidal agents that oxidize and control the
microbiological organisms. The distribution of these chemical species depends on the
pH of the water. Figure 6-1 shows the chlorine species found in solution at various pH
levels of typical condenser cooling-water pH. (Figure 6-1 also shows bromine species.)
6-6
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Figure 6-1
Halogen species found in solution at 20-25°C (68-77°F).
The acid form of the compound (hypochlorous acid) is a more potent biocide than the
alkaline (hypochlorite ion) form.
These chemical compounds are formed by the following reactions:
1. When injected into water at an acidic pH (below 7.0), chlorine reacts with water to
produce predominantly hypochlorous acid and hydrochloric acid:
Cl2 + H2O ⇒ HOCl + HCl
6-7
10937752
Chemical Treatment
2. When injected into water at an alkaline pH (above 8.0), chlorine reacts with water to
yield predominantly hypochlorite and chloride ions:
Cl2 + H2O ⇒ HOCl + HCl
HOCl + HCl + 2NaOH ⇒ OCl−+ Cl− + 2Na+ + H2O
Chlorine Reactions with Water Ingredients.

When chlorine is introduced into the cooling water system, the species immediately
start reacting with oxidizable constituents such as dissolved or suspended species in the
water, deposits within the cooling system, and some metals within the cooling system.
These constituents include:
• Organic compounds:
— Derivatives of vegetation or waste
— Inhibitors used for corrosion and scale control (such as tolyltriazole)
— Biomass, including organisms and their organic waste products
• Inorganics:
— Nitrites
— Ammonia and oxidizable metal salts (such as ferrous, cuprous, and manganous
ions)
After the chlorine species react with these organics, metals, and inorganic compounds,
the chlorine species are often reduced to chloride ions, either as an acid or a salt.
Chloride ions are not biocides at the concentrations following chlorine oxidation, but
they can be aggressive to stainless steel, mild steel, and many copper-alloys.
Chlorine will react with any ammonia or amine compounds present in the water,
forming a class of compounds known as chloramines. Initially, monochloramine is
formed. Adding more chlorine will form dichloramine, and eventually, trichloramine.
These compounds contribute to the chlorine species known as combined available
chlorine (CAC).
When more chlorine is added than is needed to react with all of the organics, ammonia
salts, and oxidizable metals combined, the chlorine remaining in the water is in the form
of hypochlorous acid or hypochlorite ions. These species are commonly referred to as
free available chlorine (FAC) (that is, available to react with biomass). This free chlorine
is a very strong oxidant and biocide. It will continue to react with any oxidizable
ingredients it contacts. These include biomass clinging to surfaces, any organics not
completely oxidized or chlorinated, and any oxidizable chemicals introduced into the
system. These chlorine (hypochlorous acid and hyp0chlorite ions) species will also react
6-8
10937752
Chemical Treatment
with some metals, such as carbon steel, copper-alloys, and oxidized metal oxides
(ferrous, manganous, and cuprous compounds) which can be further oxidized by
chlorine.
To be effective, the free chlorine species must come in contact with the biomass in the
condenser tubes. Table 6-4 is a theoretical example of chlorine action in a typical
cooling-water system. It should be understood that each water system will have its own
specific profile, depending on water quality and chlorine demand. In general, however,
all forms of available chlorine decrease as they move through the cooling system. Note
that under existing federal effluent guidelines, the higher concentrations (0.5 ppm) may
not be discharged directly to an outside water body without a permit variance.
However, they can be discharged to an on-site ash pond. Utility cooling water
discharges typically maintain TRC and CAC levels below 0.2 ppm.
Table 6-4 Chlorine Levels and Species Typically Found in Various Parts of Cooling-
Water Systems (an example where 10 mg/L chlorine is added and the water has a 5
mg/L chlorine demand)
After Chlorine Condenser Condense Plant
Injection, Upstream Inlet Outlet Discharge
of the Condenser Tubesheet
Total Residual 5.0 4.0 1.0 0.5
Chlorine (TRC)
Combined 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.4
Available
Chlorine (CAC)
Free Available 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.1
Chlorine (FAC)
(All values in mg/L)
Table 6-4 assumes that of the initial 10 mg/L chlorine fed to the cooling water upstream
of the condenser, only half, or 5 mg/L, of total residual chlorine (TRC) is found just
before the condenser inlet waterbox due to the chlorine demand of the water. Of this 5
mg/L TRC, 2 mg/L are assumed to be FAC, with the balance as CAC.
As the cooling water reaches the condenser inlet tubesheet, the TRC has dropped to 4.0
mg/L, indicating an additional chlorine consumption of 1.0 mg/L. The CAC remains at
3.0 mg/L, while the FAC has dropped from 2.0 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L. This drop is due to
continuing chlorine reactions up to the condenser inlet tubesheet, most likely from
biomass or other organics in the water, and possibly from reaction with metals in the
cooling water. As the cooling water passes through the condenser tubes, there is a
substantial drop in all chlorine values, indicating continuing chlorine reaction and
consumption within the condenser. The TRC at the condenser outlet has dropped to 1.0
6-9
10937752
Chemical Treatment
mg/L, which consists of 0.8 mg/L CAC and 0.2 mg/L FAC. At the plant discharge,
TRC drops to 0.5 mg/L TRC, while the CAC and FAC drop to half the condenser outlet
values. These reductions are due to further reactions with biomass. Note that federal
effluent limitations specify ≤ 0.2 mg/L TRC for < two hours a day, unless the discharge
is to an on-site pond. The chlorine addition at each site would be a function of needed
biofilm abatement, chlorine demand, and relevant regulations.
Methods of Feeding Chlorine Compounds.

Chlorine compounds typically are fed as aqueous solutions into the cooling water going
to the condenser. This can be done immediately before the condenser or at any
convenient location upstream of the condenser, such as at the cooling-water pumps
supplying water to the condenser. In a once-through system, the chlorine may be
injected at the plant intake to ensure treatment of the intake line as well as the
condenser. Figure 6-2 shows a typical chlorine feed schedule.
Figure 6-2
Chlorine gas feed schematic,
Table 6-5 summarizes the main methods of adding various chlorine compounds.
6-10
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Table 6-5 Chlorine-Based Oxidizing Biocides
Chemical Application Delivery Chemical Reactions

Makeup Form Methods Methods
Chlorine 100% active Liquid (gas Mixed with Pressurized Vaporizes to gas reacts
Gas chlorine under water and fed 100-, 150-, or with cooling water to
pressure) as aqueous 2000-lb form hypochlorous
solution cylinders or acid and hypochlorite
railroad tank ion, proportion
cars depending on pH (see
Figure 6-1)
Sodium NaOCl, made Liquid Mixed with 55-gal drums, Reacts with cooling
Hypochlori of chlorine gas water or fed truck or rail- water to form
te and sodium as concentrate road tank cars hypochlorous acid
hydroxide, or "tote" bins and hypochlorite
usually 10-12% proportion depending
active chlorine on pH (see Figure 6-1)
Calcium Ca(OCl)2, 65% Dry pellet, Broadcast into 50-or 100-lb Reacts with cooling
Hypochlori active chlorine, granular, or an open flume drums water to form
te though lower powder or cooling- hypochlorous acid
active from tower deck or and hypochlorite
concentrations mixed with proportion depending
are available water and fed on pH (see Figure 6-1)
as aqueous
solution
Specific detailed feed and storage information should be obtained from the product
supplier. Chlorine gas storage, safety, handling, and feeding guidelines are reviewed in
a book by White3 and can also be obtained from the Chlorine Institute, Inc.4
Chlorine Gas.
Chlorine gas is supplied as a liquid in pressurized 100-, 150- and 2000-lb cylinders or,
for larger amounts, in railroad tank cars. In the power plant, when cylinders are used,
several cylinders are often manifolded together to increase the time between cylinder
changes. The pressurized liquid chlorine, which is 100% available chlorine, vaporizes to
gas when released to atmospheric pressure at temperatures above 40°F. At lower
temperatures a heater is often used to obtain effective vaporization. Liquid chlorine can
damage the chlorine-feed system by backing up into the chlorinator as a water/gas
mixture when only a dry gas is (or should be) present.
The gas passes through a flowmeter, then is thoroughly mixed with water in an
aspirator (or water jet eductor), as shown in Figure 6-2. The resultant solution is usually
6-11
10937752
Chemical Treatment
several hundred ppm of hypochlorous acid with some chlorine at a pH of 3-4 (see
Figure 6-1). This concentrated hypochlorous acid solution is then fed to the cooling
system, where it is diluted with the cooling water to an effective biocidal concentration
of a mixture of hypochlorous acid plus hypochlorite ion, with proportion depending on
the final pH.
Clean water (i.e., free of suspended solids) should be used to prevent feeder plugging.
Concentrated cooling-tower water used in the eductor should be avoided since many
treatment chemicals can be totally degraded when contacted by the concentrated
hypochlorous acid and low-pH solution in the eductor. This is particularly true when
organic chemicals such as copper, scale, and dispersant inhibitors are present.
Chlorinators require regular maintenance to assure reliable, continuous use. Loss in

chlorine feed for several days can result in rapid biomass buildup in the condenser.
Chlorine gas is very toxic and extremely irritating. It is a green vapor that is denser than
air. Small leaks can be detected with a 10% solution of ammonia hydroxide. The
chlorine and ammonia vapors form a white vapor of ammonium chloride.
Appropriate safety equipment such as chlorine gas masks should be available in case a
leak occurs in feedlines or at cylinder connections. Consult the Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) and product label for specific safety handling and spill precautions.
Sodium Hypochlorite.
The second most commonly used source of chlorine is an alkaline water solution of
sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) with several percent free caustic. This solution is made
by reacting chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide, resulting in a very alkaline (pH 11-12)
solution of 10-12% available chlorine. (Higher concentrations such as 15-18% can be
obtained, but they quickly reduce to 10-12%.)
Sodium hypochlorite solutions are not very stable. At altitudes above 4000 feet, a 10%
solution is common because chlorine vaporizes and reduces a 12% solution to a 10%
solution within a few days. Sodium hypochlorite gradually emits chlorine regardless of
altitude, especially at temperatures above 90°E Lower-concentration solutions (5% and
8%) are sometimes used for smaller systems. (Household bleach is a sodium
hypochlorite solution of approximately 5% available chlorine.)
Sodium hypochlorite solutions are most often added to the cooling water via a
corrosion-resistant pump in an area of good mixing or through a mixing chamber. Due
to the highly alkaline hypochlorite solution, calcium scale can develop when using or
injecting into high-hardness waters. As with chlorine gas, if cooling water is used for
mixing, the high chlorine concentration can degrade some of the water treatment
6-12
10937752
Chemical Treatment
chemical effectiveness. Thus, it is advisable to use fresh water for dilution to prevent
this degradation.
Sodium hypochlorite is a strong oxidant and a highly alkaline (free caustic) liquid that
will cause skin and eye damage. Organics or cloth (rags) should not be placed in contact
with sodium hypochlorite liquid. A rapid reaction (possible explosion) and/or
spontaneous combustion can occur.
should be worn when handling any equipment storing or feeding hypochlorite. Consult
the Materia1 Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and product label for specific safety handling
and spill precautions.
Dry Chlorine-Release Chemicals.

A variety of dry products release chlorine. These products are not normally used as the
primary chlorine source for biofouling control, due to cost (see Table 6-3). They are
generally used as a temporary or emergency substitute when the regular supply of
chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite is exhausted or its feed equipment has become
inoperable.
The most common dry product that releases chlorine is calcium hypochlorite Ca(OCl)2,
often referred to as HTH (a registered trademark for "high test hypochlorite"). Calcium
hypochlorite is available in pellet (.5-in. to 1-in. diameter), granular, and powder forms
and generally has 65% available chlorine. This product is produced by reacting lime
(calcium oxide) with chlorine. Since this product is alkaline due to the lime (CaO), a 1%
water solution has an alkaline pH (10-12). When added to water, the dry product
dissolves and releases both calcium and hypochlorite ions. As with all chlorine
compounds, it will produce the hypochlorous and/or hypochlorite ion species, with the
proportion depending on the pH of the cooling water (see Figure 6-1). It is added
through a dry chemical feeding system or by spreading the dry product into the cooling
water.
Other chlorine-release agents are also available and are used as the calcium
hypochlorite. These chemicals−dichlcro-dimethyl-hydantoin, chloroisocyanurates, and
chlorinated phosphates−can be used in very small systems. They are similar to calcium
hypochlorite in that they are dry products. None of these products increases calcium
hardness, but the chlorinated phosphates can contribute phosphate that could
contribute to a scaling condition.
Dry chlorine-release chemicals are strong oxidants, and any skin or eye contact can
cause irritation or damage. The dust (or powder) is also very irritating to eyes, lungs,
and skin.
6-13
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Dry chlorine-release chemicals are similar to dry bromine-release chemicals.

should be worn when handling any equipment storing or feeding chlorine. A dust mask
can also be utilized. Consult the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and product label
for specific safety handling and spill precautions.
Chlorine Treatment: Dosage/Duration/Frequency.

Environmental regulations often limit the chlorine levels that can be used in plant
cooling water. NPDES and state permit limits are plant specific (see Chapter 3,
Regulations).
The specific chlorine treatment regime required to keep a condenser free of biomass
involves dosage of available chlorine, duration of application, and frequency of
application. This is true of other oxidants, as well as nonoxidizing biocides. The amount
of condenser biomass that accumulates between biocide applications dictates the above
three portions of the treatment regime.
Recirculating cooling-tower systems often can restrict water discharge (blowdown) for
several hours, thus allowing higher chlorine levels for longer periods of time. This may
also be true if discharge (or blowdown) water goes to an ash or retention pond or is
dechlorinated.
Each treatment regime is site specific and must be developed on the basis of condenser
cleanliness within any environmental limitations or guidelines that apply to the plant
discharge.
A microcomputer model FOULCOMP, helps utilities design effective chlorine treatment

regimes: The model can estimate the minimum level of chlorine necessary to prevent
condenser microbiofouling.
FOULCOMP uses three basic parameters: biofilm growth rate, chlorine treatment (dose,
frequency, and duration), and bacterial destruction rate. Site-specific data on biofilm
growth rates and effectiveness of chlorine treatment are generally available, or can be
collected using sidestream models. Data on bacterial destruction rate can be obtained in
the laboratory.
To use FOULCOMP, a utility calibrates the program with site-specific data. Once
calibrated, FOULCOMP can predict biofilm growth for any chlorination schedule. Thus,
FOULCOMP can reduce utility reliance on costly, large-scale chlorine minimization
studies by evaluating several possible scenarios to determine the optimum schedule for
a particular site. A 90-day test of FOULCOMP at a Northeastern power station showed
a correlation of over 90% between predicted results and field data.5
6-14
10937752
Chemical Treatment
FOULCOMP is available only to EPRI members at this time. The code may be upgraded
in the future for wider distribution. Potential users should contact EPRI for more
information.
Chlorine Treatment: Cost-Effectiveness
Chlorine compounds generally are the most cost-effective biofouling control chemicals,
except if the cooling water pH is above 7.5 and if ammonia compounds are present
(above 2.0 mg/L). Of these compounds, chlorine gas is the least expensive (see Table 6-
3). However, cost-effectiveness is not limited to obtaining chlorine at the cheapest price.
Handling, safety, feeding, and storage costs are other important cost considerations.
Chlorine Dioxide
This compound (ClO2) is used occasionally in cooling-water systems for condenser

biofouling control. It is a chlorine-based compound but is substantially different from
chlorine or chlorine-release agents. It does not directly release chlorine or form the
hypochlorous or hypochlorite species common to chlorine compounds.
Chlorine dioxide is a gas that is yellow-green at low concentrations and orange-red at

higher concentrations in air. Chlorine dioxide has a disagreeable odor, similar to
chlorine gas, and is detected at a concentration of 17 mg/L in air. It is irritating at levels
of 45 mg/L in air. Concentrations in air above 11% can be explosive. It is readily
decomposed by exposure to ultraviolet light and has slightly more oxidizing power
than chlorine.
Chlorine dioxide is generated on site, usually from reacting sodium chlorite solution
with chlorine gas, or sodium hypochlorite with an acid such as hydrochloric or sulfuric.
The solutions are mixed together in the proper proportion in a reactor or generator that
liberates the chlorine dioxide gas. The following are the typical reactions:
NaOCl + HCl ⇒ NaCl + HOCl
HOCl + HCl + 2NaClO2 ⇒ 2ClO2 + 2NaCl + H2O
When chlorine gas is used in the manufacture of ClO2, the chlorinator effluent must be
at a pH of 3.5 or lower and contain at least 500 mg/L of chlorine to assure that complete
reaction of sodium chiorite occurs. Generally, this means that the chlorine-to-sodium
chlorite ratio is set at 1:1, which results in excess chlorine production. If excess chlorine
is not desired, then the ratio is generally set at the theoretical 1:3 for chlorine-to-sodium
chlorite. Even for this method, pH is maintained below 3.5 with acid additions. Similar
constraints are necessary when sodium hypochlorite is used instead of chlorine gas.
6-15
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Sodium chlorite, the chemical used in the generation of chlorine dioxide, is most
frequently supplied as a 40% water solution and is available in standard-sized
containers. It is a strong oxidant and must be handled appropriately.
Unlike chlorine gas, which reacts with water, chlorine dioxide is a gas that dissolves in
water. Solubility depends on temperature and pressure. At room temperature (70°F) its
solubility is about 2.0 g/L, which is about five limes more than chlorine. However, it is
also quite volatile and is easily stripped from water by aeration. Due to its volatility, it is
air stripped from the water in the cooling tower. This reduction in concentration often
results in considerable biomass in the tower even though condensers are kept biofree.
Chlorine dioxide behaves very differently from chlorine in solution. It does not react
with ammonia, and it does not produce chlorinated compounds such as
trihalomethanes. Instead, it selectively oxidizes various organics such as phenols, and it
is relatively insensitive to pH. Indeed, it is almost as effective at pH 9.0 as at pH 6.0.
These properties often enable chlorine dioxide to be used cost-effectively in water of
high pH, with ammonia and organics present. However, it is not cost-effective without
these conditions. Normal usage is at lower concentrations than chlorine, such as 0.05 to
0.10 mg/L ClO2 versus 0.2 to 0.4 mg/L of chlorine to keep condensers free of biomass.
Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidant and a toxic gas which is extremely irritating.
Sodium chlorite, used to generate chlorine dioxide, is also a strong oxidant and can
cause skin and eye irritation or damage. Appropriate safety equipment such as face
mask, eye goggles, rubber gloves, and apron should be worn when handling any
equipment storing or feeding chlorine dioxide. A gas mask may be required. Consult
the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and product label for specific safety handling
and spill precautions.
Bromine-Based Oxidizing Biocides
Bromine-based oxidizing biocides release bromine species into the cooling water; these
species are hypobromous acid and/or hypobromite ions.
The pH of the cooling water determines the ratio in which bromine species are
produced. The pH-determined ratios are different for bromine and chlorine (see Figure
6-1). At the typical pH levels found in condenser cooling water (6-9), bromine produces
more of the acidic species than chlorine. With bromine, at a pH of 9.0, the cooling water
contains 80% hypobromous acid; at the same pH, chlorine would form only 10%
hypochlorous acid. The acid form of chlorine, as mentioned above, is the stronger
oxidant and is a much more effective biocide than hypochlorite ion; the hypobromous
and hypobromite ions are very nearly equal in effectiveness and approach
hypochlorous acid activity. Thus, bromine has become a more attractive option for
condenser cooling waters in the pH range of 7.5-8.5.6
6-16
10937752
Chemical Treatment
The bromine species have an advantage over the chlorine species in terms of their
reactions with ammonia: bromoamines formed in this reaction are much more active as
biocides than their chlorine equivalents and are almost as potent a biocide as the
hypobromite ion. Thus, lower levels of bromine are being used for biofouling
control−often half the equivalent free available chlorine level, which partially offsets the
added expense of bromine over chlorine. At times, control can be maintained with
combined bromine species (bromoamines) with no free available halogen.
Bromine-release compounds, which include bromine and bromine chloride, are liquids,
very strong oxidants, toxic, and extremely irritating. They release bromine, which is a
brown, heavy gas that also is a strong oxidant, toxic, and extremely irritating.
Sodium and calcium bromide, which are used to generate bromine, are generally
considered only mildly irritating, nontoxic liquids since they are generally water
solutions of salts. However, as with any chemical, general precautions with handling
should be observed. Dry bromine-release chemicals are similar to dry chlorine-release
chemicals. Appropriate safety equipment such as face mask, eye goggles, rubber gloves,
and apron should be worn when handling any equipment storing or 'feeding bromine
compounds. Consult the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and product label for
specific safety handling and spill precautions.
Bromine Treatment: Dosage/Duration/Frequency.

Environmental regulations currently limit bromine species levels in plant discharge
water to the same levels as chlorine. These regulations are site specific and often
expressed as limits in total residual halogen (TRH) or total residual oxidant (TRO),
which includes both the bromine and chlorine species.
A variety of bromine or bromine-release chemicals have been used for utility condenser
biofouling control:
• bromine liquid
• bromine chloride liquid
• sodium or calcium bromide activated by chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite
• bromo, chloro hydantoins
Though they are often the most cost-effective of the bromine compounds, bromine and
bromine chloride have seen limited use for condenser biofouling control because of
handling, feeding, and safety concerns.7 Activating a bromide salt by a chlorine
compound (usually chlorine gas or sodium hypochlorite) has become the more popular
method of producing the bromine species, hypobromous acid and hypobromite ion.
Dry bromine-release chemicals are the hydantoins. They often are used in smaller utility
plants but can be used in large utility condenser cooling systems where special
6-17
10937752
Chemical Treatment
conditions enable them to be cost-effective. Table 6-6 compares the various bromine
compounds used for condenser biofouling control.
Table 6-6
Bromine-Based Oxidizing Biocides and Biocide Precursors.
Chemical Form Application Delivery Chemical

Makeup Methods Methods Reactions
Bromine Liquid 100% active Liquid Through feeder Pressurized Forms

bromine similar to 2000-lb hypobromous
chlorine gas containers acid or
feeder hypobromite ion
Bromine BrCl, active Liquid As concentrated Pressurized Reacts in water to

Chloride bromine / active product without 2000-lb form
Liquid chlorine dilution through containers hypobromous
compound; 55% diffuser or and
active bromine disperser hypochlorous
acids
Bromochloro 1,1-bromo, Dry pellet Combination 40-lb plastic Dissolves in

Hydantoins chloro, 2- granular, storage and pails to 1500- water to form
dimethyl (or or stick chemical feeder 1b tote bins hypobromous
methyl-ethyl) form acid or
hydantoin, 35- hypobromous
45% active bromite ion
bromine
Sodium (or NaBr or CaBr2 Dry(1040- As concentrated Dry: 100-lb Forms

Calcium) 45%0%) or product without containers hypobromous
Bromide. water dilution; through Liquid55-gal acid or
(These are solution diffuser or drums, tote hypobromite ion
biocide disperser bins, or bulk
precursors.)
Bromine compounds can be the most cost-effective oxidant if the cooling water is high
in pH (above 7.5) and/or if ammonia compounds are present (above 2.0 mg/L). Of the
bromine compounds, bromine liquid has the greatest concentration of active ingredient
(100%). However, a measure of cost-effectiveness must also consider handling, safety,
feeding, and storage.
Monitoring Methods for Oxidants
Plant field tests commonly used for determining total and free available species of
chlorine, bromine, and chlorine dioxide are:
• DPD (N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine),
6-18
10937752
Chemical Treatment
• amperometric titrator, and

• on-line chlorine monitors such as oxidation-reduction potent (ORP) testers.
These methods and instruments are used to measure either or both the free available
oxidant (FAO) and the total available oxidant (TAO) levels.
Monitoring should be done each time chlorine or another oxidant is applied to ensure
that adequate oxidant levels are being maintained for the entire time of application. As
an example, if chlorine is applied several times per day for 15 minutes each time,
samples of condenser discharge cooling water should be analyzed just before
application, at five-minute intervals during chlorination, and 10-20 minutes after
chlorine application has ended. The residual chlorine concentration should be recorded
along with the dosage applied, and the chlorine feed rate adjusted to maintain the
desired residual concentration.
In the DPD test, adding the N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine reagent to the solution

causes a reaction with free available chlorine. Adding a second reagent, iodide, to the
resulting solution causes a further reaction with chloroamines (combined chlorine). The
resulting solutions are analyzed colorimetrically. In general, the results of the first
addition are considered to be free available chlorine (FAC), and the final result (after
iodide addition) is total available chlorine including free chlorine and chloroamines.
The tests are easy to perform: companies supply the various reagents in tablet form,
with color-matching charts8
A modification has been made in the DPD analysis procedure specifically to test for the
bromine species, particularly in combination with chlorine species. Through the
addition of the reagent glycine, the test allows bromine measurement without chlorine
interference.
Chlorine dioxide can be measured using the amperometric monitoring method and the
standard DPD method. However, glycine must be used to eliminate chlorine
interference: the glycine forms a chloraminoacetic acid that is not detected by the DPD
reagent.
Orthotolidine is another colorimetric test for free available and total available oxidants.
However, this test is no longer very common, due to concerns about the toxicity of the
reagents. Orthotolidine can distinguish between free and combined available oxidant
when the test is performed very rapidly. Color-comparison disks are available for
ranges 0.05 to 0.1 ppm, 0.1 to 2 ppm, and 0.1 to 10 ppm of free and combined available
oxidant. With some change in technique, higher residual concentrations can also be
measured.9
6-19
10937752
Chemical Treatment
In many cases, instruments are used to supplement field testing (colorimetric chemistry
methods). The major types of instruments used are the amperometric titrator and the
on-line monitors, using ORP (oxidation-reduction potential).
The amperometric titrator titrates the sample against phenylarsine oxide. The titration
can be set for only free available and total available oxidants. Single-operator precision
of the method can be plus or minus 0.01 ppm at 0.03 ppm.10 The amperometric titrator
is specified by EPA as the basis of the regulatory definition of FAC and TRC.I1
The ORP method, commonly used by many companies, eliminates the typical
interferences in colorimetric procedures. ORP is an electrochemical procedure that does
not measure the oxidant level but the oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). This
measurement is then related to the oxidant level vs. untreated water. It can accurately
determine the total potential of all oxidants but cannot differentiate one from the other
(chlorine vs. bromine vs. hydrogen peroxide vs. ozone, etc.)
Choosing and Using Biocide Chemicals
One should consider three types of criteria in choosing a biocide: type of cooling
system, water quality factors, and water discharge limitations and regulations.
1. The type of cooling system is important. Discharges from once-through systems are
stringently regulated, given the volume of water discharged back into the receiving
body of water. Thus, low levels of oxidant application are the usual choice. Open-
recirculating and spray pond systems have limited discharge volumes. Thus,
although oxidants are most commonly used, nonoxidizing biocides are used under
some circumstances as described earlier. If discharged, some nonoxidizing biocides
are toxic, and may require detoxification prior to discharge.
2. Water quality factors must be noted. An important consideration of water quality is

the oxidant demand of the cooling water. If the water has an oxidant demand of
greater than 10 mg/L, then any oxidant may be cost-excessive, and nonoxidizing
biocides should be considered. The pH and ammonia content of the water also
influence the choice of biocide. If the water contains more than 2 mg/L of ammonia
and/or the pH is above 7.5, then bromine or chloride dioxide very likely will be
more cost-effective than chlorine.
The water-quality criteria for choice of biocides are shown in Table 6-7.
Table 6-7
Water Quality vs. Biocide Choice
Biocide Oxidant Ammonia pH
6-20
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Demand
Chlorine-Based < 10 mg/L < 2 mg/L Below 7.5
Bromine-Based < 10 mg/L > 2 mg/L Above 7.5
Chlorine Dioxide < 10 mg/L No limit All pHs
Nonoxidizing > 10 mg/L No limit Various pHs
3. Water discharge limitations and regulations are always a major factor in biocide
selection. Regulatory agencies historically have favored chlorine or chlorine
compounds over bromine or non-oxidizing biocides. However, each state or
regional regulatory agency tends to have its own biases that must be considered.
Each location must evaluate its own system type and water quality as well as
regulations, to make a choice that will be cost-effective in the long run.
Dehalogenation (Dechlorination)
When chlorine or other oxidizing agents must be used at levels or a duration that
exceed the plant discharge limits, dechlorination must be employed. Dechlorination
simply introduces a chemical that will reduce the TRC to zero in the plant discharge
water. Chemicals commonly used are strong reducing agents such as sulfur dioxide
(SO2), sodium sulfite (Na2SO3), and ferrous iron salts. Traditionally the most cost-
effective has been sulfur dioxide.
These chemicals must be fed at sufficient duration and levels to react totally with
chlorine or any other. oxidants that may be present in the cooling-water discharge. Care
must be taken to prevent overfeed. A 1984 EPRI Report contains a detailed review of
dechlorination chemistry, system installation, and cost.12
Nonoxidizing Biocides
Nonoxidizing biocides are systemic "poisons." These biocides kill the microbiological
organisms by interfering with their metabolism, not by oxidation. The dead
microorganisms often release their hold on the condenser tube surface and are
gradually washed away. However, they can be a nutrient source for other bacteria (see
Chapter 2).
Many commercial nonoxidizing biocides are available for cooling water biofouling
control. However, limited registration and/or toxicity persistence may prevent using
them in all types of cooling systems. The biocide label lists restrictions that govern the
6-21
10937752
Chemical Treatment
use of the biocide for all applications. It also lists danger signs, environmental hazards,
treatment methods, storage and disposal instructions, and how to apply initial dosages
and subsequent dosages. Many nonoxidizing biocides are not used in once-through
cooling systems because of possible impact on the environment and discharge
restrictions. Nonoxidizing biocides often maintain their activity even after discharge
from the system, while oxidizing biocides are usually consumed in minutes. Regulatory
limitations should be understood before using nonoxidizing biocides.
Nonoxidizing biocides are usually liquids with several components: the active biocide
or biocides, solubilizers, dilutants, and occasionally surfactants or wetting agents. Most
are water based, though some are water dispersible slurries or in hydrocarbon solvents.
All of these chemicals are toxic and often quite hazardous to handle. Each product
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) should be studied prior to use (see Chapter 3).
Nonoxidizing biocides can be classified by their basic ingredients and chemical

composition (see Table 6-8).
Table 6-8
Typical Generic Nonoxidizing Biocides
Type Example
Nitrogen based Quats
Quats and Organo tin
Amines
Sulfur based Thiocarbamates
Thiocyanates
Halogen based Chloro phenols
Bromo organics
Metallic based Copper salts
Silver salts
Organo tins
Other Aldehydes
Combinations Isothiazolinone
Chloro sulfones
Triazines
The specific ingredients of these chemicals and mixtures are registered with the EPA.
Several examples of nonoxidizing biocides are described below.
The quaternary ammonium salts ("quats"), commonly used for condenser biofouling
control, include:
• Methyl-dodecyl-benzyl-trimethyl ammonium chloride
6-22
10937752
Chemical Treatment
• Tetradecyl-dimethyl-benzyl ammonium chloride

• N-dodecyl-guanidine hydrochloride
• Poly-oxyethylene-dimethyliminio-ethylene-dimethyliminio-ethylene dichloride
Some of these chemicals can cause foam since they are surface active. They usually have
a strong cationic charge that can react with commonly used anionic dispersants and/or
scale inhibitors, which can reduce the effectiveness of both the biocide and the inhibitor.
One of the sulfur-based biocides is methylene bis-thiocyanate, another nonoxidizing

bromine, effective if the cooling water has a pH of 7.5 or less; above that pH it
decomposes rapidly. Another sulfur-based biocide is dithiocarbamate, which is
effective above a pH of 7.5, but corrosive to copper alloys.
Nonoxidizing biocides are used alone only when special conditions occur, such as when
the condenser cooling water consumes large quantifies of oxidants (due to high iron
and/or manganese content, typical of mine drainage waters). However, such stand-
alone nonoxidizing use is very specialized, even when treated sewage plant effluent
(with a high oxidant demand) is used for condenser cooling water. Most commonly,
nonoxidizing biocides are used to supplement an oxidizing biocide; for example, to
control algae or sulfate-reducing bacteria. (See Table 6-1.)
Since there is such a variety of nonoxidizing biocides to choose from, it is imperative to

know which class or classes of microorganisms can be controlled with each chemical.
Plant engineers and chemists must be aware of the limits or adverse actions of these
chemicals and base the application of these chemicals on knowledge of their
effectiveness at a specific concentration and duration. This data can often be obtained
from the supplier.
Application Methods
Nonoxidizing biocides are most often applied either as a short (less than one hour)
continuous feed or a "slug" feed (added within a few minutes). These parameters are
shown on the product label and are strictly regulated. Application often is made with a
chemical pump to the cooling water
Dosage/Duration/Frequency
Common application dosages, based on system capacity or water flow, range from 5
mg/L to 100 mg/L depending on biocide effectiveness. (See Table 6-2.) The duration
varies with the "killing" power, often ranging from several minutes to several days of
biocide contact with the biomass. The frequency varies with the biocide and can be as
often as every day or as rarely as once per month, or irregularly, on an as-needed basis.
6-23
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Guidelines are provided by biocide suppliers and are printed on product labels. Some
examples for various cooling systems are:
• Once-through system
— Dosage: 5 mg/L (based on flow of product) 0
— Duration: 15 minutes continuous application
— Frequency: Daily
6-24
10937752
Chemical Treatment
• Recirculating cooling-tower system

— Dosage: 20 mg/L (based on system capacity)
— Duration: Applied within 20 minutes. However, due to recirculation, the biocide
remains at an effective level for 12 hours.
Frequency: Once every two weeks
Cost-Effectiveness
Most nonoxidizing biocide applications are much more expensive than oxidizing
biocides, but site-specific conditions could change this. Generally, nonoxidizing
biocides are applied once per week or several times per month, as compared to several
times daily for the oxidants.
Monitoring Methods
Few convenient field tests exist for measuring nonoxidizing biocides. Most
nonoxidizing biocides require specific laboratory analysis procedures. Most techniques
for monitoring nonoxidizing biocides focus on their effectiveness in keeping an
acceptably low level of microorganisms in the cooling water or maintaining the
condenser free of biomass, not on the specific chemical. Thus, monitoring condenser
cleanliness is the primary emphasis. Toxic discharge is also a criterion to be evaluated
when using a nonoxidizing biocide.
Case Histories
These examples are drawn from real plants, but do not reflect the operating history of
any specific plant.
Case History #1: Sodium Hypochlorite Alone
This plant has a once-through system with a fairly low chlorine demand water (2.0
rag/L). The water has very little ammonia (as NH3) at 0.5 mg/L, and the pH is 7.5. This
indicates that if an oxidant is chosen, chlorine would be effective. The water regulations
allow an oxidant level of 0.2 mg/L TRC (total residual chlorine) in the discharge for a
maximum of 60 minutes per day. The strict regulations prohibit non-oxidizing biocides.
And the plant management desires to reduce handling of toxic materials. Therefore,
nonoxidizing biocides and gaseous chlorine are not allowed. The chemical of choice
thus would be sodium hypochlorite.
6-25
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Plant specifics are as follows:

• Biocide chosen: 12% sodium hypochlorite solution (12% available chlorine)
• Cooling-system design: once-through−large lake
• Cooling-water flow: 120,000 gpm
• Chlorine demand: 2.0 mg/L
• Residual oxidant to be maintained: 0.2 mg/L (ppm) TRC
• Frequency of application: 20 minutes three times per day
• Note that for simplification, this case history, as well as the following case histories,
assumes no chlorine requirement for piping up to the condenser.
To determine the quantity of biocide initially needed, the engineer must determine the
amount of sodium hypochlorite required to satisfy the chlorine demand of the water
(2.0 mg/L) plus residual of chlorine to be maintained (0.2 rag/L). This amount is 2.2
mg/L of available chlorine. Thus, 2.2 mg/L available chlorine is required at the inlet to
the condenser.
The cooling-water flow of 120,000 gallons per minute is roughly equivalent to 1,000,000
pounds per minute, and if requires 2.2 pounds (2.2 ppm) available chlorine. We note
that 10 pounds of 12% sodium hypochlorite solution will provide 1.2 pounds of
available chlorine. Therefore, 18.34 pounds of hypochlorite will yield 2.2 mg/L chlorine
at the condenser inlet.
For every minute of chlorine feed, 18.34 pounds of hypochlorite solution will be
required. The plant feeds hypochlorite for twenty minutes, three times a day. Each 20-
minute hypochlorite feed requires 366.8 pounds (or approximately 37 gallons). Three
applications per day requires a total of 111 gallons per day. A 30-day supply would be
3,330 gallons of a 12% sodium hypochlorite solution.
This is a typical calculation, based on water quality and residual requirements. Only
after application and measurement can the true biocide requirements be determined.
However, it is best to design the storage/delivery system at two to three times the
theoretical requirements. In this case, a storage system for 10,000 gallons per month
would be conservative.
Case History #2: Sodium Hypochlorite and Sodium Bromide
This plant has a once-through cooling water system to and from a small lake. The water
oxidant (chlorine) demand is quite low (1.0 mg/L). The water has 2.0 mg/L ammonia,
and the pH is quite high (8.3). This indicates that a bromine-based oxidant likely would
be more cost-effective than chlorine, since it is more effective at higher pH (see Figure 6-
6-26
10937752
Chemical Treatment
1) and when combined with ammonia to form bromoamines (see the bromine
discussion earlier in this chapter).
The water regulations allow an oxidant level of 0.2 mg/L TRO (total residual oxidant)
for a maximum of 60 minutes per day at the plant discharge. This time restriction
includes nonoxidizing biocides. For safety reasons, the plant management does not
want to use gaseous chlorine. The chemical of choice would be a bromine-based
oxidant. The one chosen was produced by reacting sodium hypochlorite (12%) liquid
with sodium bromide (forming a hypobromous/hypobromite mixture).

• Biocide chosen: 12% sodium hypochlorite solution (12% available chlorine) and 40%
sodium bromide solution
• Cooling-system design: once-through __ small lake
• Oxidant demand: 1.0 mg/L (ppm)
• Residual oxidant to be maintained: 0.2 mg/L (ppm) TRO
• Frequency of application: 30 minutes twice per day
To determine the quantity of biocide initially needed, the engineer must determine the
amount of sodium hypochlorite needed to convert all of the sodium bromide to the
hypobromous/hypobromite mixture and then to satisfy both the oxidant demand of the
water (1.0 mg/L) and the residual oxidant level to be maintained (0.2 mg/L TRO). This
amount is 1.2 mg/L available oxidant. Note that sodium hypochlorite is once more a
12% solution in water, while sodium bromide is a 40% solution in water.
One mole of sodium hypochlorite will react with one mole of sodium bromide.
However, since sodium bromide is heavier than sodium hypochlorite, 1 pound of
sodium hypochlorite will react with 1.4 pounds of sodium bromide to produce 1.6
pounds of sodium hypobromite (see reactions in the earlier discussion on bromine).
Thus, 8.33 pounds of 12% sodium hypochlorite solution will give one pound of sodium
hypochlorite, which will react with 3.5 pounds of a 40% sodium bromide solution (1.4
pounds of sodium bromide) to produce 1 pound of sodium hypobromite.
The plant will require enough hypobromite to provide 1.2 mg/L available oxidant per
minute. Since 60,000 gpm cooling water is 500,000 pounds per minute, this will require
0.6 pounds available oxidant per minute. This will require 0.6 times 8.33 pounds of
sodium hypochlorite solution, and 0.6 times 3.5 pounds of sodium bromide solution, or
5 pounds of sodium hypochlorite and 2.1 pounds of sodium bromide per minute of
feed.
6-27
10937752
Chemical Treatment
Since feed is planned for 30 minutes twice per day, then 150 pounds (approximately 16
gallons) per feed is required each time or 300 pounds (approximately 32 gallons) per
day of sodium hypochlorite solution. Similarly, the amount of 40% sodium bromide
solution needed is 63 pounds per feed or 126 pounds (approximately 12.6 gallons) per
day. Storage requirements for a 30-day supply would be 960 gallons of sodium
hypochlorite, and 380 gallons of sodium bromide.
Again, this is a sample calculation: actual biocide requirements can be determined only
after application and measurement. It is best to design the storage/delivery system at
two to three times the theoretical requirements.
Case History #3: Nonoxidizing Biocide (30% "Quat")
This plant has a cooling-tower system. The cooling tower blowdown is discharged to an
ash pond which absorbs any remaining quat. Therefore, regulatory restrictions do not
apply to the choice of a biocide.
The water quality of the concentrated cooling-tower water shows a high oxidant
(chlorine) demand (15 to 40 mg/L) due to natural organics (lignins and tannins from
vegetation). Soluble iron and manganese are also present at high levels. The system pH
is controlled at 8.0 to 8.5, and ammonia is present at 2 to 5 mg/L (as NH3).
These water quality considerations indicate that any oxidant (particularly chlorine)
would not be cost-effective. The specific choice would be a nonoxidizing biocide: for
example, a quaternary ammonium salt ("quat").

• Biocide chosen: 30% quat water solution
• Cooling-system design: recirculating (cooling tower)
• Capacity of system: 1.6 million gallons
• Quat level to be added: 20 mg/L (ppm) of quat added as supplied
• Frequency of application: once every two weeks
The amount of biocide needed (20 mg/L of product or 6 mg/L of active ingredient) for
a cooling-tower system is based on the capacity of the entire system, which in this case
is 1.6 million gallons (13.34 million pounds of water). Thus 20 mg/L of the quat product
into this volume is 266.8 pounds. This means that approximately 30 gallons of the quat
product will be necessary.
6-28
10937752
Chemical Treatment
The biocide is added via pump or gravity feed into a convenient location such as the
circulating pump suction, or added to the open flume of the circulating system.
Addition is usually rapid, taking only a few minutes. The quat mixes as the cooling
water passes through the condenser and cooling-water system. Just prior to adding the
quat, the cooling-tower blowdown is usually reduced or stopped as long as possible to
"hold" the chemical in the system. The water chemistry is usually the limitation on how
long the blowdown can be stopped.
Since the system recirculates and the quat decays slowly, there is considerable contact
time with any biomass. Addition is repeated every two weeks (or as needed) for good
biocontrol.
Targeted Treatment and Targeted Chlorination
The targeted treatment technique was developed to maintain condenser biofouling

control while complying with very strict chlorine limits in the condenser cooling-water
discharge. Though the same technique ("targeted treatment") can be used with a variety
of chemicals, the usage to date has been with chlorine ("targeted chlorination").
Targeted chlorination consists of initially making several penetrations in the condenser

waterbox to install delivery piping. Software is available from EPRI to determine the
appropriate configurations and number of pipes. The pipe delivers high levels of
chlorine (10-20 ppm at the nozzle, which becomes diluted to 1-2 ppm at the condenser
tubesheet) sequentially to a small portion of the condenser tubes (10% or fewer of the
tubes in the entire condenser) in the inlet waterbox for a short period of time, such as
five to ten minutes. Mixing and diluting the discharge from these tubes with discharge
from the other (90%) untreated tubes assures compliance with environmental limits at
the cooling-system discharge.
The following designs have been tested at full scale: fixed piping, moving-manifold,
and tubesheet-manifold injection systems (each tube individually treated). The generic
form of this method allows any water-soluble chemical, not just chlorine, to be injected
in this fashion. This technique may offer an additional option to plants that have severe
fouling but have stringent discharge limitations. Corrosion and materials compatibility,
however, is an important site- and chemical-specific issue that needs to be addressed
before this method is employed. Currently, the fixed pipe design is in commercial use at
several power plants. Several EPRI reports discuss this technique and provide design
guidelines for its application.13,14,15,16,17
Nontoxic Biocontrol Chemicals and Techniques
A group of nontoxic chemicals can assist in condenser microbiological fouling control.

These wetting agents, or surface-active products, chemically disperse or detach the
6-29
10937752
Chemical Treatment
biofouling mass from the tubes. Most of these chemicals are proprietary. They may be
referred to as biocide "helpers" or "biodispersants"; they provide an effective action with
both oxidants and nonoxidants. Biomass is an accumulation of three layers: (1)
gelatinous bioorganisms, (2) their extracellular polymers and (3) their waste products.
Thus, any biocide can reach only the surface of this biomass and gradually kill each
layer (see discussion of biomass characteristics, Chapter 2).Through the use of
biodispersants, the biomass can be broken up for more effective attack by the biocide.
These biodispersants can be Used at fairly low levels (2-10 ppm) but are more effective
at higher levels (20-40 ppm). Monitoring their effect on condenser performance can
provide a measure of effectiveness and the dosage required to remove biomass.
Chemical treatment is most effective when biocides are applied on a regular basis to a
condenser that is clean initially and is kept clean (see Chapter 2). In the event that a
condenser is already biofouled, it must be cleaned either chemically or mechanically.
Sometimes a "clean-up" dosage of biocide is used. The dosage, duration, and frequency
can be several times greater than the routine treatment levels. Another approach is to
clean the condenser tubes mechanically on- or off-line (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of
cleaning condensers mechanically).
Off-line chemical treatment is also possible, but it is rarely done for biofilms alone. The
usual purpose of off-line chemical treatment is to remove scale.
Recent Developments
Condenser Performance Test Facility
One method of testing chlorination schedules or evaluating a variety of biofouling

control options is through the use of the Condenser Performance Test Facility (CPTF).
The CPTF is a trailer-contained sidestream monitor that simulates water flow and
temperature patterns inside condenser tubes. The facility can accommodate up to seven,
10-foot long condenser tubes of the same or varying metallurgy. The tubes are heated
with external, etched foil electric heaters. Tubes from an existing condenser can be
incorporated to provide side-by-side comparison to an operating plant. The user can
control piping arrangements, tube heating, water flow velocity, and chemical injection
rate to evaluate fouling conditions and control options. Automated data logging and
precision instrumentation provide accurate, sensitive, and repeatable measurements of
fouling within the tubes.
The CPTF was designed to measure both heat transfer resistance and frictional losses
due to microbiological growth, scale, silt, or other deposits inside tubes, and to
simultaneously evaluate options to alleviate these problems. Potential applications
might include testing of micro-fouling control chemicals, optimization of dechlorination
6-30
10937752
Chemical Treatment
schedules, investigation of scale-control alternatives or monitoring of condenser

performance.
To verify the design and operability of the CPTF, an 18-month test program was
conducted at Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Moss Landing power plant. The
facility operated successfully throughout the tests and provided sensitive
measurements of heat transfer changes due to biological fouling; other types of fouling
were not evaluated. The tests used titanium tubes. A final report on the test results18
and a Facility operations manual19 are in preparation.
Equipment included in the Facility include: tube racks and electric heaters; power and
flow control equipment for the tubes; flow, pressure and temperature measuring
equipment; chemical metering pumps; a data logging system (including a personal
computer with software); and an internal transformer to provide 220- and 110-volt
power. The host site must provide a water supply pump (20 hp), electrical power (200
to 225 amps, 480 volts) and 4-inch water discharge and supply piping (including valves,
screens, and strainers).
New Biocides
Several oxidants currently show promise for use in condenser biofouling control. These
oxidants include hydrogen peroxide and ozone. However, these oxidants have had
limited application and must be reviewed for site-specific application. In general, they
are either too costly or have limited effectiveness for power plant use.
Hydrogen peroxide is a fairly good biocide, but it is not necessarily cost-effective. It is

supplied as a liquid, usually as a 30% water solution. It is fed via a pump, similar to the
sodium hypochlorite solution. It is a weaker oxidant than chlorine. Use levels are
equivalent to chlorine, 0.5 _ 1.0 mg/L active oxidant, but effectiveness usually requires a
minimum of twice the contact time. After reaction, hydrogen peroxide is reduced to
water and oxygen. Thus from an environmental standpoint, this lack of regulated by-
products is a major advantage. It is commonly used in high-purity systems for
biocontrol.
Ozone is currently being evaluated in small air-conditioning cooling systems.20 Ozone

gas is produced by passing dry air or oxygen through an electric current or "corona."
The gas is dissolved in water, and the solution is then injected into the cooling water
Dosages are usually less than 0.2 ppm oxidant, since higher levels can oxidize (corrode)
other materials in the system. Ozone has very limited solubility in water, much like
oxygen, and is easily stripped at the cooling tower Ozone reacts quickly with many
organics and biomass, and it is quickly depleted. Ozone is often completely consumed
and not detectable 10 minutes after injection; multiple injection locations might be
required.21 On the other hand, ozone decays to oxygen; the lack of residuals can be an
6-31
10937752
Chemical Treatment
environmental advantage. In general, ozone appears not to be cost-effective for utility

plants, due to the high cost of generation and installation, rapid reaction, low solubility,
and unpredictability of performance. However, studies continue to evaluate ozone for
biofouling control. If it can also help control deposits and corrosion, it may be cost-
effective in the future. 22, 23
Ultraviolet light has very limited effectiveness. It is produced by special bulbs, and its
strength is measured by the intensity of the lamp and the power input. However, it is
active only as far as the light can penetrate, and it does not penetrate turbid water. It is
not carried by the water; thus, it cannot clean condenser surfaces.
References
1. J .G. Kanuth and P. R. Puckorius. "Cooling Tower Film Fill Water Quality/Operations
Guidelines for Successful Utilization. "Cooling Tower Institute, 1992 Annual
Meeting, Technical Paper TP92-06, Evergreen, Col.: Puckorius & Associates,
February 1992.
2. Database of Generic Chemical Additives Usage in Cooling-Water Systems. Palo Alto, Calif:
3. G. C. White. The Handbook of Chlorination. Second Edition. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, 1986.
4. The Chlorine Institute, 2000 L Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.
5. EPRI Technical Brief, TB.GS.57.11.88, 1989.
6. R. M. Post and J. P. Dilzell. “Alternative for Achieving Chlorine Discharge

Compliance.” In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control __ State-of-the-Art
Symposium. CS-4339. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November
1985, p. 4-184.
7. R. Chiesa and D. Geary. "Cost Comparison of Alternative Biocides for Condenser

Biofouling Control." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control __ State-of-the-Art
Symposium. CS-4339. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November
1985.
8. White, op. cit.
9. White, op. cit.
10. White, op. cit.
6-32
10937752
Chemical Treatment
11. ASTMD 1253, 1991 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 11.01, pp. 398-401.
12. Sargent & Lundy. Dechlorination Technology Manual. Palo Alto, Calif: Electric Power
Research Institute, 1984. CS-3748.
13. Y. G. Mussalli. Condenser-Targeted Chlorination Design. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric

Power Research Institute, October 1985. CS-4279.
14. Y. G. Mussalli. Condenser-Targeted Chlorination Demonstration at Brayton Point Station

__ Unit 2. Palo Alto, Calif: Electric Power Research Institute, 1991. GS-7181.
15. Y. G. Mussalli and G. A. Gehring, Jr. Effects of Targeted Chlorination on AL-6X

Condenser Tube Corrosion in Seawater. Palo Alto, Calif: Electric Power Research
16. B. W. Vigon, N. G. Reichenbach, and W. Chow. "Field Demonstration of a Moving

Manifold Targeted Chlorination System at John Sevier Fossil Plant. In Proceedings,
50th Annual International Water Conference, Paper No. IWC 89-35, 1989.
17. Y. G. Mussalli. Design Guidelines for Targeted Chlorination With Fixed Nozzles. Palo
Alto, Calif: Electric Power Research Institute, 1992, TR101096.
18. J. Garey, T. Lott, and C. Hardy. "Condenser Performance Test Facility: Field Test
Program." EPRI Draft Report, RP2300-6, to be published.
19. "Condenser Performance Test Facility: Operations Manual." EPRI Draft Report,
RP2300-6, to be published.
20. M. Jones. "Ozonation of Cooling Tower Water." EPRI Brochure, BR-100426, January
1992.
21. R. G. Rice and j. E Wilkes. "Fundamental Aspects of Ozone Chemistry in

Recirculating Cooling Water Systems." In Corrosion '91, the NACE Annual
Conference and Corrosion Show, March 11-15,1991, Cincinnati Convention Center,
Cincinnati, OH.
22. J. Brooke and E R. Puckorius. "Ozone for Cooling Tower Systems: Is It a Panacea?"
Puckorius & Associates, presented at The NACE Annual Conference and Corrosion
Show, Corrosion 91, March 11-15, 1991.
23. P. R. Puckorius. "Ozone Use in Cooling Tower Systems __ Current Guidelines __

Where It Works." Puckorius & Associates, presented to The International Ozone
Association Pan American Committee, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, September 16-18,
1991.
6-33
10937752
10937752
7
MECHANICAL CLEANING METHODS
Mechanical cleaning of condensers falls into two categories: on-line and off-line. This
chapter presents each technique and discusses operational advantages, disadvantages,
limitations, and costs of cleaning condensers mechanically. This allows direct
comparison of techniques and provides guidance in designing new hardware and
improving existing hardware.
The increasingly stringent limits on the discharge of oxidizing biocides has expanded
the interest in using mechanical methods for cleaning power plant condensers. The
specific technology of choice will be dependent on plant-specific characteristics, state
and federal regulatory requirements and economics.
Table 7-1 presents a decision-making matrix for mechanical technologies as related to

tube material (copper-alloy, stainless steel, or titanium), and type of foulant (hard or
soft).
Table 7-11
Recommendations for Mechanical Methods of Cleaning Biofouling
Tube Material
Cleaning Method Copper-Alloy Stainless Steel Titanium
On-Line
Ball R R R
Brush and Cage R R R
Off-Line
Air and Water S S S
Bristle Brush R R R
Scraper R R R
Water Lance R R R
Cleaning Method Recommendation:
R = Recommended
S = Satisfactory
7-1
10937752
Mechanical Cleaning Methods
On-Line Cleaning Techniques
On-line techniques clean condenser tubes without removing the condenser from
service. These techniques include (1) bail systems and (2) brush and cage systems.
The best mechanical on-line cleaning method for a given site depends on
• level of macrofouling (biogrowth and debris) in the system
• space upstream and downstream of the condenser for filters and ball strainers,
• feasibility of backfitting cages to the inlet and outlet tubesheets for brushes,
• difference between the increased head loss resulting from condenser fouling and the
head loss that would result from installing a filter and a tube-cleaning system,
• availability of a reverse-flow capability, and
• nature and severity of tubeside microfouling.
Ball Systems
Ball systems use the cooling water flow to push or force slightly oversized sponge
rubber balls through the condenser tubes, thus providing a continuous wiping action
against the inner tube walls. Figure 7-1 shows a typical ball cleaning system, developed
some 35 years ago in Germany, and since modified by French, Japanese and American
companies. One study shows that ball cleaning can control biofilm and other fouling,
such as calcium carbonate, silica, manganese dioxide and silt.2 Cleanliness factors of up
to 95% are achievable.3
7-2
10937752
Figure 7-1
Typical system arrangement; continuous sponge ball
The ball cleaning system is quite susceptible to the introduction of debris. If debris clogs
or obstructs the tubesheet at the inlet waterbox, some tubes cannot receive cleaning
balls. Worse yet, if debris lodges within a tube, there is a high probability that the tube
will further plug with balls and/or more debris and eventually become useless.
Ball system manufacturers and others supply a number of upstream debris filter
designs (Figures 7-2 and 7-3) that address this problem.4
7-3
10937752
Figure 7-2 Debris filter.
Figure 7-3 Backwashed debris filter.
7-4
10937752
These systems can add significantly to system capital cost. Higher operating costs, in
the form of increased auxiliary power consumption due to additional pressure drop
across the debris filter, must also be considered. These costs, as well as increased
maintenance costs, must be weighed against improvements due to cleaner tubes and
tubesheets (improved heat rate performance and reduced pressure drop across the
condenser).
Retrofit Concerns.
For existing systems, space and outlet piping configurations can influence the retrofit of
a ball cleaning system. If debris affects the effectiveness of the ball system, and a filter is
required, then space limitations at the inlet piping or space in the condenser waterbox
should be considered. Current filter backfit designs require the space of one pipe
diameter.
The outlet piping affects the location, design, and cost of the ball collection strainer. The
system strainer section requires accessible exposed piping of one pipe diameter at the
outlet.
All remaining system components (small pumps, collectors, valves, etc.) can be installed
wherever space exists. Inlet piping and waterbox design, and the resultant
hydrodynamics, also affect the location and number of ball injectors required to achieve
a uniform bah distribution into the tubes. Therefore, backfit of the new designs is
feasible except in difficult applications where the inlet and outlet piping are embedded
in concrete.5
O&M Costs.
The greatest source of dissatisfaction among ball system users has been the cost
associated with system operation and maintenance. The piping systems, valves, and
plugs can experience accelerated corrosion. The linkages of the older designs can
come loose, and the instrumentation and controls require maintenance. Ball wear is a
normal condition resulting in the loss of under-size balls that pass through strainer catch
screens. Full-size balls can lodge behind debris or collection grids and become lost after
a routine backwash operation. Ball "hiding" occurs at stagnation points in waterboxes
and other areas where low fluid velocity allows balls to stop moving. As strainer section
screen condition or function deteriorates, balls are easily lost.
Ball replacement, then, is a normal operating cost associated with proper system
operation. The manufacturers normally recommend replacing a complete charge of
balls approximately once a month because of ball wear. Historical operating data show
that ball usage is often much higher. New designs promise improvement in ball usage.
Under-size balls perform little or no cleaning function and must be removed regularly.
Removal is normally done manually at the bah collector by shutting down the unit and
passing each ball through a clearance check. The dimensional tolerance is checked by
7-5
10937752
operators who use a round pan with appropriately sized holes. Since new balls must
achieve the right density to operate properly they must be deacrated by agitation in the
collector using the ball recirculation pump before release into circulation. These
operations are labor intensive, requiring about two hours by one operator every one or
two weeks. Many users replace all balls without sizing based on an average ball lifetime
determined from experience, thereby reducing the labor required to operate the system.
Steps of Ball Systems.

This system includes three steps: (1) ball injection, (2) tube cleaning and (3) ball
collection and return for reinjection.
Ball Injection. The balls are injected into the circulating water upstream of the
condenser inlet, most commonly in an elbow bend, as shown in Figure 7-1. To provide
good ball dispersal, injection is against the direction of inlet cooling water flow.
When deaerated, the balls are approximately the same density as the cooling water;
therefore, they should enter the tubes randomly so that no section of tubes will be
preferentially cleaned or neglected. A charge of balls equal to 5-15% of the number of
condenser tubes per pass is sufficient to maintain cleanliness. With this ball count and
continuous injection, each tube is expected to receive a cleaning ball about once every
five to ten minutes.
Tube Cleaning. Experience shows that the actual physical distribution of balls may not
be uniform.6'7 This call lead to inadequate cleaning or excessive wear of some tubes,
depending on tube material and cooling water conductivity. Figure 7-4 shows a typical
ball density distribution measured in a hydraulic model of a large condenser. The ball
distribution is affected by the location of ball injection and by the flow patterns in the
inlet waterbox. Field studies, where ball baskets are installed at the outlet tubesheet to
catch the balls, can confirm the actual ball distribution. Hydraulic model studies of a
scale of about 1:10 can also determine nonuniform distributions and a means of
achieving uniformity.8
7-6
10937752
Figure 7-4
Predicted ball density distribution for existing distribution of balls between
nozzles.9
A ball cleaning system can also deal with strongly attached foulants by replacing some
of the normal sponge rubber balls with balls that have an abrasive coating bonded to
them. Granulate rubber balls have also been used to maintain the cleanliness of
titanium tubes without scratching them.10 When the foulant has been removed, normal
service with plain sponge balls can resume. This practice must be monitored closely
because of potentially rapid erosion of copper-alloy tubes by the abrasive balls.
The constant wiping action of the balls can also remove tube oxide coating and wall
material. Figure 7~5 shows typical metal loss by abrasive ball cleaning. Overcleaning
soft base metals, such as copper-alloys, results in erosion/corrosion of the tubes in high-
conductivity cooling water Also, tubes treated with ferrous sulfate for corrosion
protection must be carefully monitored. Overcleaning such tubes removes the
protective film; undercleaning may leave a thick film that can inhibit heat transfer. Both
corrosion and heat transfer monitoring of copper-alloy condenser tubes are required to
maintain an operational balance.
7-7
10937752
Figure 7-5
Metal loss by abrasive ball cleaning.
The erosion/corrosion of copper-alloy tubes and the action of ball cleaning may
produce trace metal effluents that affect water quality standards.
Figure 7-6 presents data from two tests11 showing that the uniform, general corrosion
loss of aluminum-brass tubes in sea water associated with circulation of sponge balls for
0.5-1.0 hour per week is approximately 10 mg/cm2 per year or 0.46 mills per year.
7-8
10937752
Figure 7-6
Optimum sponge ball frequency.
Because of their inherent toxicity, copper-alloy condenser tubes are less susceptible to
biofouling than stainless steel or titanium tubes. Using copper-alloy tubes in clean sea
water therefore requires less sponge ball cleaning to maintain optimum cleanliness and
tube service Life. Therefore, under these conditions, one cleaning cycle per week should
be sufficient. However, if the sea water is polluted or contains specific fouling agents
that could produce pitting or other localized corrosion, the sponge ball cleaning
frequency may have to be increased to prevent under-deposit corrosion. This under-
deposit corrosion can cause tube failure much faster than uniform corrosion of the
entire tube surface.
Ball Collection and Return for Reinjection. After the balls have traveled through the
condenser tubes, they must be caught without impeding the flow of water. They are
caught by a specially designed strainer system mounted downstream of the cooling
water outlet waterbox (Figures 7-1, 7-7, and 7-8 show various strainer arrangements).
The balls are then discharged to the ball collector by recirculation pumps (see Figure 7-
1). At the collector unit, the operator can visually inspect the balls, manually size them,
and replace any under-size balls. Balls flow from the collector unit to the injection
locations at the inlet water-box, where the cycle begins anew.
7-9
10937752
Figure 7-7
Strainer system mounted downstream of the cooling water outlet waterbox (older
design).
7-10
10937752
Figure 7-8
Typical dual-screen strainer (newer design).
Strainer design is crucial to successful operation. At times strainers become clogged

with debris, under-size balls, or ball fragments. A differential pressure measuring
system can be installed on the strainer section to indicate debris loading and to initiate a
screen backwash procedure if a predetermined differential pressure is reached. Some
designs backwash by canting the screens. Trapped debris is then flushed from the
"front" side of the screen and out to the cooling water discharge destination. The
strainer screens are then returned to their normal operating orientation.
The primary disadvantage of the multiple screen strainer (older design), shown in
Figure 7-7, is the large number of moving parts in the upper screens, lower screens,
shut-off flaps, and throttle flaps. All of these are shaft mounted and operated via
linkages and mechanisms from outside the strainer section. Failure of any of these
movable parts will eventually lead to significant ball loss and maintenance effort. The
moving parts are actuated by both motor and mechanical operators, all of which require
periodic maintenance and replacement.
The simpler, and new, strainer design in Figure 7-8 uses a ball recovery system based
on a stationary extraction block with small hydrofoils installed at the apex of the
screens. The hydrofoils create small localized vortices that remove the balls from the
screen surface and keep them in suspension until they reach one of the extraction ports
located at various points along the extraction blocks. This type of design has far fewer
moving parts. The multiscreen strainer design can be modified to the simplified dual-
screen strainer design. This modification is cost effective if the existing upper screens
are in good condition or require only minor repair. If extensive repairs are required for
7-11
10937752
the upper screens, replacing the strainer with a newer design as in Figure 7-8 may be
more cost effective.
One type of ball recirculation system (Figure 7-9) requires reinjection pumps that
remove the balls from one half of the strainer section and inject them into the other half.
Other pumps are used to extract all the balls from the strainer section and circulate
them through the collectors to the condenser inlet, where they are reinjected into the
incoming cooling water.
Figure 7-9
Ball recirculation system.
7-12
10937752
Piping systems can be simplified by repiping from the strainer section to the suction
side of the ball recirculation pumps and increasing the impeller size within these
pumps. This could result in redundant pumps, each capable of circulating all the balls if
repairs are required on the other. Automatic ball recirculation monitors can sound an
alarm should ball circulation fall below a preset value.
Table 7-2 presents a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of ball systems.
Table 7-2
Advantages and Disadvantages of Ball Systems
Advantages Disadvantages
Start-up costs are lower than for brush Operating costs are higher than for brush
and cage systems because installation and cage systems due to increased
requires only ball addition and ball maintenance, auxiliary power
collection sections. consumption, and ball replacement.
This system reduces number and The system is labor intensive: balls must
frequency of shutdowns for manual be inspected and replaced frequently.
cleaning.
Different balls are available for different Adjustments must be made to mechanized
foulants. system components and controls.
The need for biofouling chemicals is Space and outlet piping configurations can
reduced or eliminated. influence retrofit.
Cleaning is continuous. Overcleaning of soft metals can result in
increased tube corrosion.
The system can prevent under-deposit pit The system is susceptible to the
corrosion. introduction of debris.
Operation is automatic. Capturing balls can be problematic. A
major escape of balls into a neighboring
river can create poor publicity.
Effective ball cleaning depends on an even
flow distribution in the condenser. if flow
is uneven, some tubes may be cleaned
more often or not cleaned at all
While fouling of tubes can be reduced or
eliminated, reduction of biocide usage
after system installation may result in
fouling of the collection screens, adding to
waterside pressure drop
7-13
10937752
Brush and Cage Systems
Another on-line condenser tube-cleaning method is the brush and cage system.
Although some large power plants use this system, it is used primarily by smaller
power plants, cogeneration plants, industrial heat exchangers and refrigeration
chillers.12 There are presently fewer than ten condenser cleaning systems of this type in
the United States. A typical system arrangement is shown schematically in Figure 7-10.
Figure 7-10
Typical brush and cage tube-cleaning system.
In this arrangement, a captive brush is shuttled back and forth through each condenser
tube by reversing the direction of flow through the condenser. Flow reversal requires
appropriate valves and piping. There are several ways to install this flow-reversal
mechanism. The type of flow diverters used depends on the specific site piping
configuration.13 There is no need for a strainer; the cleaning brushes are caught by nylon
cages attached to each tube end with epoxy or screws (epoxied cages break off more
easily but are easier to repair). Flow reversal is usually initiated automatically on a
7-14
10937752
timed cycle, but remote manual operation is also possible from the system control
panel.
The brush and cage system requires limited maintenance or operator attendance. Other
than the flow-reversal valves and the brushes themselves, there are no moving parts.
The brushes are usually guaranteed for five years. For a typical large power plant
condenser, it is recommended that only 500 spare brushes and cages be purchased to
replace units that may fall off the tube ends. Large debris in the waterboxes can result in
loss of brushes and serious damage to the cages.
The most significant area of concern for potential users of the brush and cage system is
the need for an expensive flow-reversal system, particularly in large steam condenser
applications. Reversal of established cooling water can cause:
• hydraulic transients in the system
• transient decrease in heat transfer rate
• transient rise in condenser (shellside) back pressure
• drop in turbine generator output
Table 7-3 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of brush and cage systems.
7-15
10937752
Table 7-3
Advantages and Disadvantages of Brush and Cage Systems
Advantages Disadvantages
Normal operation and maintenance costs Initial capital costs are high, especially if
are low because the system requires flow reversal is to be installed.
limited maintenance or operator
attendance.
The system provides continuous cleaning Retrofitting requires additional piping and
of each tube without the need for valves to permit flow reversal.
biofouling chemicals.
Except for the flow-reversal valves and Flow reversal is necessary, particularly in
the brushes themselves, there are no large steam condenser applications.
moving parts, so there is no need to
replace worn cleaning elements
frequently.
Brushes are usually guaranteed for five Detecting tube leaks and conducting eddy
years. current tests is difficult because cages
obstruct tube ends.
Except for occasional brush and cage The unit must be shut down during brush
replacement, shutdowns for manual and cage replacement.
cleaning are eliminated,
Split condensers and two-pass condensers Without debris filters, fibrous debris tends
can be accommodated. to wrap around the catch cages and
brushes, rendering them useless and
blocking cooling water flow.
The brushes may overclean the tubes,
removing material and possibly reducing
wall thickness
Thermal transients can hamper turbine
performance
Bent or damaged brushes can become
lodged in tubes, restricting flow
Costs
The mechanical complexity of the ball cleaning system-with strainers, actuator linkages,
pumps, collectors and other ancillary equipment-results in high initial capital costs. For
a typical condenser for a 250-300 MW plant cooled with freshwater that has two 66-
inch-diameter condenser discharge nozzles, the system capital cost would be
7-16
10937752
approximately $225,000 for the tube-cleaning system and approximately $400,000 for
the debris filters, including two years' worth of spare parts, using manufacturers'
recommended quantities.14 This amount does not, however, include the installation
costs which can be substantial. It also does not include labor costs for periodic
maintenance' (ball inspection and replacement).
Installed costs for the brush and cage system in the condenser example described above
would be about $200,000, excluding the cost of the flow-reversal system and the filter. A
flow-reversal system, if backfitted, can cost in excess of $500,000, depending on the
complexity of the retrofit.15 This amount does not allow for recommended spare parts
for the first two years of operation, due to the five-year warranty on brushes and cages.
Operating costs for actuator power and brush replacement for a unit is about $5,000 per
year.16
EPRI published generic cost data for both ball and brush cleaning systems in 1987.17
Figure 7-11 shows updated versions of these costs in relation to the size of the plant for
ball cleaning. Figure 7-12 shows updated versions of the costs for the installation of a
new brush system that also requires the installation of a flow-reversal system as well as
the costs for installation with an existing flow-reversal system. The cost difference due
to the flow-reversal system can be as high as $300,000 for a 250-MW plant, as compared
on Figure 7-12. Both figures reflect a single-shell condenser design for plants smaller
than 400 MW and a split condenser for plants larger than 400 MW.
Figure 7-11
Condenser tube cleaning and debris filter systems−unit size vs. installed equipment
cost.
7-17
10937752
Figure 7-12
Cost of brush type cleaning system.
Experiences
EPRI surveyed the performance of more than 100 on-line mechanical cleaning systems
in North America.18 The results of the survey were generally favorable with regard to
both cleaning system performance and operating and maintenance considerations. It
was concluded that mechanical cleaning is an established technology capable of
controlling condenser fouling under a range of conditions. However, utilities should be
aware of conditions under which the performance of mechanical cleaning systems may
be inadequate and/or operating and maintenance problems may occur.
Mechanical condenser cleaning systems are capable of controlling all types of foulants
including biofouling, silt, calcium carbonate, and silica. For biofouling control, sponge
balls are used. For tenacious films, abrasive bails are occasionally used.
The survey also found that the majority of North American plants operate their cleaning
systems continuously. Some plants that operate intermittently can also achieve
adequate cleanliness. The required frequency of operation is site-specific and depends
on the concentration and type of foulants in the cooling water system. Performance of
mechanical cleaning systems is adversely affected by excessive debris in the cooling
7-18
10937752
water systems. Debris filters and improved intake screening should be strongly
considered.
Other results of the EPRI survey:

• Ball Replacement. Replacement is required, on the average, once a month. Plants
with high ball losses or hard scale require more frequent ball replacement.
• Collection Strainer Operation and Maintenance. First-generation strainers with
multiple screens and linkages require an average of 15 hours per month to repair
linkages and perform maintenance. Second-generation strainers currently offered by
manufacturers require minimal maintenance.
• Debris Filters. These are reliable. In plants with stringy grass or severe
macrofouling, consideration should be given to small filter openings (such as 3-4
mm) and to foul-release coatings on filter internals.
• Other Components. Other components, such as recirculation pumps, are reliable
and generally require only routine maintenance.
• Accelerated Corrosion. Accelerated corrosion can result from over-cleaning copper-
alloy tubes and using saltwater cooling, whether abrasive or nonabrasive bails are
used. Plants that used nonabrasive balls and freshwater cooling did not experience
significant corrosion, regardless of tube material.
• Environmental Considerations. None of the plants surveyed monitors the
concentration of metals in the effluent. However, condensers with cooling towers
and copper-alloy tubes have the potential to exceed the water quality standards for
copper due to accelerated corrosion.
• Performance. The industry has many examples of successful and of inadequate
applications.
The majority of plants surveyed (86%) were satisfied with the overall performance of
the continuous sponge ball systems. Some plants, however, discontinued operation due
to excessive ball loss, strainer maintenance, and component corrosion.
Condenser operators reported improvements in cleanliness factors of up to 90-95% due

to ball cleaning.
The majority (about 77%) of ball cleaning systems in the United States use freshwater
cooling. The most common tube materials are 304 stainless steel (58%), 90/10
copper/nickel (10%), and admiralty (9%). Titanium-tubed condensers are increasingly
using ball cleaning because of restrictions on chemical treatments of titanium and
titanium's potential for increased fouling.
7-19
10937752
The single most important parameter affecting performance is the level of macrofouling
or debris in the cooling water system. Debris can render the ball cleaning system
inoperable. Approximately one fifth of the plants surveyed have installed debris filters
to minimize debris accumulation in the condenser. Many plants without filters had to
manually remove the debris or suffered reduced cleaning system operation.
In summary, experiences with on-line mechanical cleaning systems have, In general,

been good. However, utilities should be aware of the potential operating and
maintenance problems and should evaluate the system on a case-by-case basis as to
capital cost of a retrofit or new equipment, and life-cycle costs of O&M.
Off-Line Cleaning Techniques
Many condensers in power plants do not experience severe microbiofouling problems,

thereby avoiding the large capital investment associated with an on-line cleaning
system. However, even in condensers without severe biofouling or scale buildup, it
may be necessary or advisable to dean tubes at scheduled outages.
Many off-line tube-cleaning systems are available today.19 All require an operator or
technician to apply them manually All require taking the condenser, or a section of the
condenser, out of service and opening the waterboxes to allow access to tubes. All can
be completed quickly and routinely or on an emergency basis.
Off-line tube cleaning involves shooting or lancing. Shooting propels a tube-cleaning

projectile (scraper, brush, rubber plug, or plastic pig) through each tube using air
pressure, water pressure, or air and water pressure combined. Lancing pushes and
pulls through each tube a flexible lance or rotating shaft with an attached cleaning
device (water head, rotating brush, scraper head, drill bit, or cutter).
Shooting is much faster than lancing. Lancing requires the manual feeding and
withdrawal of the lance, as opposed to shooting a device through the tube at speeds in
excess of 10-20 ft/s.
The various tube-cleaning methods produce different results at different costs. The best
method for each site depends on:20
• the rate of corrosion, deposition, and biofouling
• the physical characteristics and corrosion resistance of the tube material
• the type of tube foulant
• the length of the unit outage (planned outage times vs. the additional time required
for cleaning)
• cleaning expenses vs. fuel savings from improved unit heat rates
7-20
10937752
• the cleaning frequency
Cleaning Equipment
The most common types of off-line tube-cleaning equipment are air/ water-driven
systems (bristle brushes, air/water, pigs, scrapers), mechanically driven systems
(scrapers, 'cutters, and rotating brushes) and pressure-driven systems (water lances).21
Air/Water-Driven Systems (Bristle Brushes, Air/Water, Pigs, Scrapers).
One of the simplest off-line tube-cleaning methods uses a bristle brush quite similar to
(but with denser bristles than) the brush used in the on-line tube-cleaning system. The
cleaning brush is inserted into one end of a dirty tube and propelled through it with a
blast of compressed air, pressurized water, or a combination of the two. Removed
material is flushed out along with the propelling medium as the brush moves along the
tube and into the outlet waterbox.
Brushes with nylon or metallic bristles can be used, depending on the nature of the
fouling. Figure 7-13 shows a typical water-driven bristle brush and a propellant gun.
Soft rubber plugs or plastic scrapers can be used in place of brushes if fouling
conditions permit. Another possibility is simply shooting 200-400-psi air and/or water
through the tube. This is the fastest method but is not appropriate for all cleaning.
Figure 7-13
Typical water bristle brush and propellant gun.
7-21
10937752
If the foulant is too hard to be removed by bristle brushes, then scrapers may be used.
These are driven with 200-400 psi water pressure and are shown in Figure 7-14.
Scraping edges are spring loaded to match the specified tube diameter.
Figure 7-14
Scrapers and propellant gun
7-22
10937752
Scrapers are one of the most effective off-line tube-cleaning methods developed in the
United States. Strong enough to remove hard deposits, they retard under-deposit tube
pitting. Properly used, scrapers will not stick inside the tube unless the tubes are
already damaged or obstructed.
Mechanically Driven Systems (Scrapers, Cutters, Rotating Brushes).

The most difficult foulants may be removed by cutting or scraping. Cutters and scraper
heads are available in a variety of configurations. Some look like ordinary twist drills;
others look like multihead oil-drilling rigs. Most are equipped with flexible shafts or
universal joint shafts and are motor driven. Some are adjustable to accommodate
varying tube bores; rotating brushes are also used. Examples of rotating brushes,
cutters, and scraper heads are shown in Figure 7-15.
Figure 7-15
Rotating brush, cutter and scraper head on flexible shafts
Pressure-Driven Systems (Water Lances).

In water lancing, the foulant is removed by shearing the layers with high-pressure,
high-velocity water jets. Water is pumped through a flexible hose or rigid metal shaft,
the end of which is attached to a stainless steel head. The head is drilled with several
orifices to define a particular spray pattern that will usually provide self-propulsion as
well as tube wall cleaning. Lance head design is critical to foulant removal. Since water
pressures of 8,000-10,000 psi are normally used, operators need to take extreme safety
precautions. These high pressures can collapse tube ends and tube inserts and also
damage tubesheet coatings. Typical water lance heads are shown in Figure 7-16.
7-23
10937752
Figure 7-16
Typical water lance heads.
Costs
Except for the very costly semiautomated water-lancing technique, off-line equipment
appears quite inexpensive when compared with on-line tube-cleaning systems. The
simpler off-line techniques can have a large capital cost advantage. These techniques
can be performed quickly under non-ideal conditions (i.e., under reduced unit load,
with only half the condenser out of service; on weekends; at low load periods; and/or
during emergency outages caused by other equipment failures). Unfortunately, off-line
methods must often be postponed until an annual outage. And condenser performance
degradation between off-line cleanings raises fuel costs (see Chapter 5). Table 7-4 shows
recently quoted first costs associated with the various off-line tube-cleaning systems.
Table 7-4
Typical Equipment Costs for Off-Line Tube-Cleaning Systems (in 1990 dollars)
Cleaning Cost* Cost, $/ft Time/Cleaning Ratio**
Method
Air/water $ 800 0.001 1.0
Bristle Brushes $14,000 0.016 3.0
Metal Scrapers $ 20,000 0.025 3.0
Plastic Scrapers $16,000 0.020 1.6
Cutters and $ 25,000 0.031 6.0
Scraper Heads
Water Lances $15,000 0.020 6.0
Water Lances $ 85,000 0.1 6.0
(semi-
automated)
*Costs quoted are for a condenser with 20,000 stainless steel tubes, each 3/4-inch
diameter, 40 feet long. Prices are in 1990 U.S. dollars and include spare parts and
7-24
10937752
consumable sufficient for two years.

**Approximate multiples for each cleaning method based on air/water cleaning.
The off-line costs include all labor, setup charges, materials, and cleanup charges
incurred in cleaning a condenser. All time-cleaning ratios are based on the amount of
time it would take to clean the condenser with high-pressure air and water. For
example, water lancing takes six times as long as shooting with air and water.22
Cleaning times will depend on condenser length and configuration.
The most common consideration in determining how often to clean condensers is

turbine backpressure. Other considerations are unit availability, time since last cleaning,
or scheduling routine (i.e., every six months). See Chapter 5 for a full discussion of
biofouling evaluation and the cost of partial outages vs. the cost of not cleaning, and
Chapter 4 for a discussion of monitoring methods.
A life-cycle economic analysis of off-line vs. on-line mechanical cleaning may reduce the
economic advantage of the off-line systems or even make the on-line cleaning systems
more economically attractive.
A life-cycle economic analysis of mechanical cleaning may prove that condenser tube
lifetime increases at those plants that keep their condensers adequately clean for
efficient heat transfer and corrosion protection.23 Overcleaning, however, may remove
the protective film and result in the accelerated corrosion of the tubes, as discussed
earlier in the on-line cleaning section of this chapter.
Past experience, the experience of other plants or test programs can be used to select the
optimum tool and process combination. Tests that evaluate tool/process combinations
can be carried out on plant condensers or sidestream units.
A credible test program should assess results. Visual examination, even with a
borescope, can provide only qualitative data. Eddy current testing or laboratory
evaluations may be used to evaluate the effects of off-line processes on tube corrosion
and/or wall loss. Destructive testing (tube removal) with subsequent laboratory
examination is an alternative method. Testing with a sidestream unit greatly reduces or
eliminates the need for destructive tube sampling of the actual plant condenser.
Waste Disposal
Dry off-line processes require an industrial vacuum cleaner with a filter to collect
removed deposits and limit airborne dust. Tarps or plastic wraps can also minimize
airborne dust.
7-25
10937752
Wet processes generally require containment, testing, and disposal of debris-laden

water. For condenser cleaning, temporary traps or temporary rigid plastic channel
covers Can contain water locally. Using detaining drums and/or temporary screens can
limit the discharge of large particles into the water drain system.
Passivation and deposit-removing chemicals added to the water can complicate waste
disposal. Water containing chemicals may require either treatment or off-site disposal.
Advantages of Off-Line Systems.
Off-line systems cost significantly less than on-line systems. Additionally, off-line
cleaning systems require no maintenance or monitoring, as is required with on-line
equipment. There are no balls to replace, no back-flushes to initiate nor are there any
reverse-flow system transients. When the off-line cleaning is completed and the system
is back in service, the cleaning components themselves are stored and require no
attention.
Disadvantages and Limitations of Off-Line Systems
A principal disadvantage of off-line tube-cleaning equipment is that it interrupts

service. The condenser cannot function at full load while it is being cleaned, and this can
be expensive, especially with forced outages.
On-line and off-line tube-cleaning systems share the objective of maintaining tube
cleanliness and ensuring intended heat transfer rates. But, whereas tube cleanliness is
maintained continuously by on-line systems, tube cleanliness may begin to deteriorate
as soon as an off-line tube cleaning is completed. If this situation can be tolerated
because of very conservative design margins and/or acceptably slow rates of foulant
formation, then off-line cleaning systems may be sufficient.
The on-line cleaning equipment cleans tubes by removing a thin layer of deposit with
each pass, thereby assuring that fouling is slow to build up. On the other hand, the off-
line cleaning equipment typically is not used at all until fouling is sufficiently thick to
warrant unit shutdown. By this time,. the deposit may have taken on a wholly different
character. Instead of contending with a thin, soft layer, the scraper or high-pressure
water lance may encounter a hardened, tightly adherent material that is difficult to
remove.
To prevent this, a conscientious program of off-line tube cleaning once or twice per year
at scheduled outages is good practice. Off-line systems assure every tube is cleared and
cleaned.
7-26
10937752
Each type of off-line cleaning device has limitations. For instance, although bristle
brushes, driven by relatively safe water pressures of 200-400 psi, are the most common
off-line cleaning method, they may be effective only for the softest foulant. Scrapers and
high-pressure water lancing may be more effective against more tenacious deposit, but
they may need help where fouling buildup has been allowed to get too thick and hard.
When high-pressure water lancing equipment must be used, it presents a potential
safety hazard to operating personnel because of pressures as high as 8,000-10,000 psi.
Often this equipment is used by a contractor who specializes in the high-pressure
equipment. Propelling the cleaning devices through the tubes with high-pressure air or
air/water also presents a safety hazard due to very high travel speeds.
As a final choice, rotating brushes, cutters, and scraping heads are possible, but they are
simply too slow to use for routine surface condenser tube cleaning. These methods are
used where serious problems exist in the tubes and other off-line methods are
unsuccessful. They can easily gouge and otherwise damage tube walls if they are used
too aggressively or incorrectly.
All off-line tube-cleaning methods use consumable cleaning devices that wear out and
require periodic replacement.
Table 7-5 presents a summary of the off-line methods, their advantages, limitations, and
costs. Table 7-6 presents a summary of on-line vs. off-line techniques.
7-27
10937752
Table 7-5
Off-Line Condenser Tube-Cleaning Methods
Method of Features and Disadvantages and Cost*
Cleaning Advantages Limitations
Air/water-driven Equipment significantly Equipment must be out $14,000
bristle brushes, cheaper than on-line of service; lost revenues
rubber plugs, and alternatives from downtime
plastic pigs Cleaning devices require Increased labor cost
no special maintenance or Potential hazard to
monitoring operating personnel
Fast Immediate performance
degradation after
cleaning
Water-driven Safe Equipment must be fully $20,000
scrapers Fast or partially out of service;
Scraping edges are spring lost revenues from
loaded to match the downtime
specified tube diameter Scrapers may gouge and
Can collect tube deposit damage tube walls if
samples for testing used aggressively
Cutters and scraper Cutters are available in a Equipment must be out $25,000
heads variety of configurations of service; lost revenues
Most cutters are from downtime
equipped with flexible Cutters may gouge and
shafts or universal joint damage tube walls if
shafts used aggressively or
Most cutters are motor incorrectly
driven Slow: must travel twice
the distance as shoot
cleaners and at manual
speeds
Water lances Use high-pressure water Equipment must be out $15,000
spray to remove scale of service; lost revenues
due to downtime
Potential hazard to
operating personnel
Can damage tubesheet
coatings
Can collapse thin tube
walls at tube to tubesheet
joint
* Costs quoted are for a condenser with 20,000 stainless steel tubes, each 3/4-inch diameter, 40
feet long. Prices are in 1990 U.S. dollars and include spare parts and consumable sufficient for
two years.
7-28
10937752
Table 7-6
Comparison of On-Line vs. Off-Line Techniques
On-Line Off-Line
Requires a comparatively large capital Significantly cheaper
Significantly cheaper investment.
Cleans a thin layer of foulant with each Tube cleanliness may begin to deteriorate as
pass, so foulant cannot build up. soon as tube cleaning is complete.
No interruption in service. Full or partial interruption in service.
Continuous cleaning of each tube Fouling can take on different characteristics,
without the need for biofouling so the scraper or high-pressure water may
chemicals. have to deal with a hardened, tightly
adherent material that is difficult to remove.
Requires limited maintenance and Requires an operator or a technician during
operator attendance. cleaning. Some equipment poses a safety
hazard due to high water or air/ water
pressures that propel cleaning devices
through the tubes.
Constant wiping action of balls can Lances, rotating scrapers, brushes, and
remove tube wall material; brushes cutters can gouge and damage tube walls if
scrape the inner surfaces of the tube, they are used aggressively and/ or
removing material and possibly incorrectly.
reducing wall thickness.
Balls must be inspected and replaced Only water lance systems don't wear out or
frequently, and broken or abraded require periodic replacement.
balls must be removed.
Balls can be stopped by debris and can
plug up tubes.
Mechanical/Chemical Combined Cleaning Techniques
No one technique for cleaning biofouling is ideal under all conditions. Sometimes
chemical cleaning is required to complement mechanical cleaning or vice versa. For
example:
• Acid cleaning might be needed to reduce the fouling thickness followed by
mechanical cleaning with scrapers or high-pressure water lances to remove the
remaining fouling film.
• Chemical biocide treatment may be needed to disinfect copper-alloy tubes from
bacterial attack, supplementing a ball cleaning or brush cleaning technique.
7-29
10937752
• Many utilities that use on-line ball cleaning also use brushes or water lances during
outages to remove debris or tenacious films on the tubes. These films may not be
biological, but corrosion products, mussels, or debris.
Recent Developments
Low surface-energy coatings are known to slough off biofouling films. These (1-3 mil)
films can be sprayed on the tube interiors to protect against corrosion and minimize
biofouling. This technology originated in Europe and has been used in Germany and
Italy; an EPRI report discusses demonstration projects in the U.S.24 Basically, the coating
reduces heat transfer about 5%. The tubes, however, foul less than noncoated tubes, and
the overall heat transfer coefficient or cleanliness factor is, therefore, higher for a coated
tube. A Florida utility is evaluating an epoxy coating in a large fossil station for use in a
full-scale application.
References
1. J. Tsou and Y. Mussalli. "Overview of Power Plant Condenser Cleaning

Technology." National Association of Corrosion Engineers Annual Meeting, Paper
No. 255, Nashville, Tenn., April 28, 1992.
2. R. Renfftlen. "Effectiveness of On-Line Sponge Ball Cleaning Against Typical

Condenser Foulants." ASME-JPGC, 1989, Pwr-Vol. 6, pp. 41-45.
3. Sargent & Lundy. Performance of Mechanical Systems for Condenser Cleaning. Palo Alto,
Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, January 1987. CS-5032.
4. T. O. Holderer, S. L. Williams, and L. D. Buckels. "The Effects of Condenser

Biofouling on Plant Performance." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control—State-
of-the-Art Symposium, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November
1985. CS-4339.
5. Y. Mussalli. Guidelines on Macrofouling Control Technology. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric

Power Research Institute, June 1987. CS-5271.
6. A. Kawabe and F. Treplin. "Japanese Experience with Biofouling Control." In

Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control __State of the Art Symposium. Palo Alto, Calif.:
Electric Power Research Institute, November 1985. CS-4339, pp. 5-44.
7. Y. Mussalli et al. "Improved Ball Distribution to Achieve Optimum On-Line

Condenser Cleaning." ASME/EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference, Scottsdale,
Ariz., May 7-9, 1991.
7-30
10937752
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. I. Multer. "Testing of Granulate Balls in On-Line Tube Cleaning System." In

Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control—State-of-the-Art Symposium, Palo Alto,
Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November 1985. CS-4339, pp. 5-156 to 5-167.
11. S. Sato et al. Evaluation of Various Preventative Measures Against Corrosion of Coper
Alloy Condenser Tubes by Seawater. Sumitomo.
12. R. Bell et al. "State-of-the-Art Mechanical Systems for Scale and Biofouling
Removal." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control __State-of-the-Art Symposium.
Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November 1985. CS-4339.
13. M. Grunde and K. Someah. "Automatic On-Line Mechanical Cleaning System for
Condensers and Heat Exchangers." In Proceedings: EPRI Geothermal Conference and
Workshop, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, 1987.
14. Mussalli, op. cit.
15. Condenser Macrofouling Control Technologies. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research
16.R. Bielecki. "Reversing Brush Condenser Tube-Cleaning Experience at PP & L." In

Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control __State-of-the-Art Symposium, Palo Alto,
Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November 1985. CS-4339, pp. 5-168 to 5-180.
17. Sargent & Lundy, op. cit.
18. Sargent & Lundy, op. cit.
19. R. Bell et al., op. cit.
20. M. Barrios. "Off-Line Condenser Cleaning Practices at Florida Power & Light
Company." In Proceedings: Condenser Biofouling Control __ State of the Art Symposium,
Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric Power Research Institute, November 1985. CS-43.39, pp. 5-
181 to 5-191.
21. Bell et al, op. cit.
22. Ibid.
7-31
10937752
23. A.W. Hovland. "The Economics of Mechanical Condenser Tube Cleaning," ASME
1990 IPGC, Boston, Mass., October 21-25, 1990.
24. Y.G. Mussalli. Heat Exchanger Tube Coatings and Liners. Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric
Power Research Institute, March 1989. GS-6203.
7-32
10937752
A
CALCULATING THE PERFORMANCE
FACTOR-WORKSHEET
The purpose of this worksheet is to calculate the performance factor of a condenser.

First, it will be necessary to gather the following information (please make a copy of this
worksheet, and then fill in the blanks). You will also need a copy of the steam tables, the
HEI tables, and a table of natural logarithms. A table of specific heats of water of
different salinities may make the calculation more accurate, if you have saline water in
your condenser, and you know its salinity.
item a) tube outside diameter (inches)
item b) tube length (feet)
item c) total number of tubes in condenser
item d) number of plugged tubes
item e) design cleanliness factor (from specifications)
item f) inlet water temperature (T1) oF
item g) outlet water temperature (T2) oF
item h) cooling water flow (gallons per minute)
item i} condenser absolute pressure (in. Hg)
item j) condenser steam temperature at that
absolute pressure: (item I) yields [(TS)oF.]
(from steam tables and item i)
item k) condenser pressure drop (ft. H2O)
item l) cooling water specific heat (Btu/°F lb H2O Cp).
We have used 1.0. but it may be different
for brackish or seawaters.
item m) tube material (for use with HEI tables)
item n) tube gauge (for use with HEI tables)
item o) tube internal diameter (inches)
item p) plant load
A-1
10937752
Calculating The Performance
Factor-Worksheet
Calculating the Performance Factor
The performance factor equals Uactual/Utheoretical
U actual
P= =
U theortical
The calculation worksheets for Uactual and Utheoretical are on the following pages. When
you have filled in these worksheets, please return to the first page, fill in the blanks, and
you will have the performance factor.
Uactual is the heat transferred, divided by the surface area responsible for the transfer
and the log mean temperature difference, or:
Q
U actual = =
( A) x ( LMTD)
Fill in the blanks from the quantities calculated below.
Q is the heat transferred, which is the mass flow of water times its heat capacity times
the temperature difference, or:
Q = W x Cp x (T2 - T1)
In terms of the units of our worksheet:

Q (Btu) = (item h) x (gallons/minute) x 60 (minutes/hour) x (8.34 lb water/gallon) x
(item 1) Btu/lb-water °F x (item g - item f) °F
or
Q = (item h) x (500.4) x (item 1) x (item g - item f)
Fill in the values of your own items, and insert into the numerator (Q) in the Uactual
calculation above.
A is the surface area available for the heat transfer: the number of unplugged tubes
multiplied by the surface area of the tubes. In terms of the units of our worksheet:
A = (item c - item d) item b (feet) π (item a) (1 ft/12 inches)
= item c - item d) x (item b) x (item a) x (0.2618)
Fill in the values of your own items, and insert in the denominator (A) in the Uactual
calculation above.
A-2
10937752
Factor-Worksheet
Calculating LMTD
Calculation for LMTD (log mean temperature difference).
T2 − T1
LMTD =
ln
(Ts − T1 )
(Ts − T2 )
In terms of the units of our worksheet, this means
(item g − item f )
LMTD = =
(item j − item f )
ln
(item j − item g)
Fill in the values of your own items and calculate LMTD. Insert in the denominator
(LMTD) in the Uactual calculation above.
You have now calculated all quantifies needed for the Uactual calculation. Calculate
Uactual and insert in the numerator of the performance factor calculation on the first
page.
Calculating Utheoretical
Utheoretical is the theoretical efficiency of heat transfer, calculated from cooling water flow
rates, plant materials, and design specifications.
U theoretical = CF1 F2 F3 V
Fill in the blanks from the quantities calculated below:
C is the tube diameter coefficient. Use the outside diameter of the tube (item a) and look
up this coefficient in the HEI tables.
F1 is the inlet water correction. Use the inlet water temperature (item f) and look up this
coefficient in the HEI tables.
F2 is the tube material and gauge correction. Use item m and item n and look up this
coefficient in the HEI tables.
F3 is the cleanliness correction from design specifications (item e).
A-3
10937752
Factor-Worksheet
V is the velocity of the water flow in feet per second, derived by taking the mass flow of
water in the condenser, correcting to cubic feet-water/ second, and dividing by the total
area it is flowing through (the inside area of all the functional tubes). In terms of the
units of our worksheet:
( item h ) gal. min(1 min 60sec) × (1 cubic foot 7.48gal.)

V=
( item c − item d ) total tubes π( item0 2) inches (1 foot 12in )
2 2
or
item h( 0.4085)
V=
( item c − item d) × ( item o) 2
When you have finished your calculation of V, take the square root of the value.
Put that square root into the equation for Utheoretical. Calculate Utheoretical.
Insert Utheoretical into the calculation for performance factor on the first page, and
calculate the performance factor.
A-4
10937752
Factor-Worksheet
Example
Example: a plant operating at full load with the following parameters

item a) tube outside diameter (inches) 1
item b) tube length (feet) 50
item c) total number of tubes in condenser 16.240
item d) number of plugged tubes 1250
item e) design cleanliness factor (from specifications) 0.85
item f) inlet water temperature (T1) oF 65
item g) outlet water temperature (T2) oF 85
item h) cooling water flow (gallons per minute) 200,000
item i} condenser absolute pressure (in. Hg) 1.96
item j) condenser steam temperature at that absolute
pressure: (item i) yields [(TS)oF.] (from steam tables 100.47
and item i)
item k) condenser pressure drop (ft. H2O) 10.85
item I) cooling water specific heat (Btu/°F lb H2O Cp). We
have used 1.0. but it may be different for brackish 1
or seawaters.
item m) tube material (for use with HEI tables) 90-10 CuNi
item n) tube gauge (for use with HEI tables) 18
item o) tube internal diameter (inches) 0.902
item p) plant load 90%
Calculating the Performance Factor
The performance factor equals Uactual/Utheoretical
U actual
P = =
U theoretical
Uactual is the heat transferred, divided by the surface area responsible or the transfer and
the log mean temperature difference, or
Q
U actual = =
(A) x (LMTD)
Fill in the blanks from the quantities calculated below:
A-5
10937752
Factor-Worksheet
Q is the heat transferred, which is the. mass flow of water times its heat capacity times
the temperature difference.
Q = W x Cp x (T2-T1)
Q = (item h) x (500.4) x (item l) x (item g - item f)

= 20,000(500.4) x (1) x (20)
= 2.016 x 109 Btu
A is the surface area available for the heat transfer: the number of unplugged tubes
times the surface area of the tubes.
A = (item c - item d) x (item b) x (item a) x (0.2618)
= 4,990(50) x (1) x (0.2618)
= 96,219 ft2
Calculating LMTD
Calculation for LMTD (log mean temperature difference).
T2 − T1
LMTD = =
(T − T )
s 1
(T − T )
ln
s 2
In terms of the units of our worksheet, this means:
(item g - item f) 85 − 65
LMTD = =
(item j - item f) 100.47 − 65
In In
(item j - item g) 100.47 − 85
= 24.13oF
We now have all the quantities needed for the Uactual calculation.
Q 2.016 x 10 9
U actual = = = 4258
.
(A) x (LMTD) (196.219) (24.13)
Insert in the numerator of the performance factor calculation on the first page.
A-6
10937752
Factor-Worksheet
Calculating Utheoretical
Utheoretical is the theoretical efficiency of heat transfer, calculated from cooling water flow
rates, plant materials, and design specifications.
Fill in the blanks from the quantities calculated below.
C s the tube diameter coefficient. For a tube with 2 inch outside diameter (item a), the
coefficient in the HEI tables is 263.
F1 is the inlet water correction. For inlet water of 65°F (item f) the coefficient in the HEI
tables is 0.960.
F2 is the tube material and gauge corrections. For 91/10 CuNi, 18 gauge (item m and
item n), the coefficient in the HEI tables is 0.90.
F3 the cleanliness correction from design specifications (item f), is 0.85.
V is the velocity of the water flow in feet per second, derived by taking the mass flow of
water in the condenser, correcting to cubic feet minus water/second, and dividing by
the total area it is flowing through (the inside area of all the functional tubes). In terms
of the units of our worksheet:
item h( 0.4085) (200,000) × ( 0.4085)

V= = = 6.67
( item c − item d ) × ( item o) (14,990) × ( 0.920) 2
When you have finished your calculation of V, take the square root of the value.
6.67 = 2.58
Put that square root into the equation for Utheoretical. Calculate
Utheoretical:
= 263) x (0.960) x (0.90) x (0.85) x (2.58)

= 98.32
Insert Utheoretical to the calculation for performance factor on the first page, and calculate
the performance factor:
A-7
10937752
Factor-Worksheet
U actual 4258
.
P= = = 0.8545
U theortical 498.3
This value represents approximately a 15% decrease in performance.
A-8
10937752
B
CALCULATING HEAT RATE
A heat balance computer model was prepared for a typical unit based on the full load
heat balance diagram. The condenser was modeled using the design parameters
provided. Performance characteristics of the rest of the plant components (pumps,
feedwater heaters, boiler) were held constant. This was a reasonable assumption, since
their variable effect on performance will not be a factor when considering only
condenser-related parameters. For example, the efficiency of the boiler feed pump will
not vary substantively at full load, regardless of the performance of the condenser.
Feedwater heater performance and boiler efficiency will not vary with condenser
performance. On the other hand, the steam turbine was accurately modeled since the
steam turbine responds to changes in condenser backpressure.
The model first calculates a table of unit heat rates depending on circulating water inlet
temperatures and cleanliness factors. The results, predicted condenser backpressures
for 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% of full load, are shown in tables B-1 through B-4,
respectively. For some of the runs made at the 25% and the 50% cases, there was no
effect on condenser backpressure or improvement in cleanliness factor. At these low
loads, the condenser is limited by air removal capability (as calculated according to the
HEI standards). Therefore, an improvement in cleanliness does not produce a decrease
in backpressure due to this air removal limitation.
Table B-1
Sample Unit: 100% Load Backpressure Effect of Cleanliness Factor and Circulating
Water Temperature (in. Hg)
Circulating Water Cleanliness Factor

Temperature 50 60 70 80 90
40 1.82 1.40 1.16 1.01 0.09
50 1.95 1.57 1.34 1.20 1.09
60 2.29 1.89 1.65 1.50 1.38
70 2.85 2.39 2.12 1.93 1.80
80 3.66 3.11 2.77 2.54 2.38
B-1
10937752
Calculating Heat Rate
Table B-2

40 1.16 0.94 0.81 0.73 0.67
50 1.33 1.12 0.99 0.90 0.84
60 1.64 1.41 1.26 1.17 1.10
70 2.13 1.84 1.67 1.55 1.47
80 2.84 2.47 2.24 2.09 1.98
Table B-3

40 0.74 0.49 0.49 049 0.49
50 0.91 0.80 0.74 0.59 0.59
60 1.18 1.05 0.98 0.92 0.88
70 1.57 1.42 1.32 1.25 1.20
80 2.13 1.93 1.80 1.71 1.65
Table B-4 Sample Unit: 25% Load Backpressure Effect of Cleanliness Factor and
Circulating Water Temperature (in. Hg)

40 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
50 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
60 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
70 1.16 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
80 1.59 1.50 1.44 1.27 1.27
B-2
10937752
From these tables, a "delta heat rate" was computed from a baseline cleanliness factor of
90%. This was done for four 'different loads, as above.
The results are given on tables B-5 through B-8 respectively. As mentioned above, there
is little or no improvement in heat rate with changing cleanliness factor at low loads
due to the air removal limitations of the condenser at very low backpressure.
Table B-5
Sample Unit: 100% Load Heat Rate Effect of Cleanliness Factor (Btu/kWh) (Base =
90% C.F.)

40 42.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 66.4 17.4 1.1 0.0 0.0
60 131.6 53.9 23.4 7.7 0.0
70 226.9 113.9 53.7 19.6 0.0
80 326.0 182.0 95.0 39.0 0.0
Table B-6
Sample Unit: 75% Load Heat Rate Effect of Cleanliness Factor (Btu/kWh) (Base = 90%
C.F.)

40 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 38.3 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 99.1 44.1 20.1 7.4 0.0
70 183.0 98.0 49.0 19.0 0.0
80 258.0 148.0 79.0 33.0 0.0
B-3
10937752
Table B-7 Sample Unit: 50% Heat Rate Effect of Cleanliness Factor (Btu/kWh) (Base =
90% C.F.)

40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 39.3 16.6 6.0 0.1 0.0
60 100.5 52.0 25.1 9.7 0.0
70 164.7 95.3 51.3 21.4 0.0
80 213.0 126.5 69.7 29.3 0.0
Table B-8
Sample Unit: 25% Load Heat Rate Effect of Cleanliness Factor (Btu/kWh) (Base = 90%
C.F.)

40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
70 197.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
80 273.0 181.0 135.0 0.0 0.0
B-4
10937752
By examining the various trends for condenser performance, the following nominal
water temperatures are assumed:
January 40 oF July 60 oF
February 50oF August 60oF
March 50oF September 50oF
April 60oF October 50oF
May 60oF November 50oF
June 60oF December 50oF
This results in the following annual distribution:
40°F 1 month
50°F 6 months
60°F 5 months
70°F 0 months
80°F 0 months
This approach assumes that the unit will be loaded somewhat evenly throughout the
year, and that outages (planned and forced) will also be evenly distributed.
Descriptive data can indicate the loading of the sample unit on a typical day. For this
example, the following assumptions were made:
25% load 7 hours/day
If we assume an improvement to 90% condenser cleanliness, then the values from tables
B-5 through B-8 in the column corresponding to the current cleanliness factor are
weighted by the number of months in each temperature range.
By weighting the percent of time at each load point and at each circulating water inlet
temperature, a weighted average heat rate penalty for the two cases (60-90, and 70-90)
was determined. For instance, assume the unit was at 100% load for 29.2% of the time (7
hours/day), and sees 60°F circulating water temperature 41.7% of the time (15
months/year). The heat rate improvement at full load and 60° is 53.9 Btu/kWh for a
change in condenser cleanliness factor from 60%-90% as shown on Table B-5. Thus, a
weighting factor of 12.2% [(0.417) (0.292) = 0.122] is applied to the 53.9 Btu/kWh
improvement for the percentage of time that the unit is at full load, and 60° water inlet
B-5
10937752
temperature. Similarly, a weighting factor is determined for each proposed

improvement as a function of load and temperature. As a check, the sum of all of the
weighting factors will add to one. The result of the weighting is as follows:
Weighted Average Heat Rate
Improvement
(60-90%) 20.0 Btu/kWh
Weighted Average Heat Rate

Improvement
(70-90%) 7.3 Btu/kWh
With this information, it is possible to convert a heat rate improvement to an annual

fuel cost savings. For the analysis of the sample unit, base case capacity factor and
improvement from 60-90% condenser cleanliness is determined by:
Fuel cost savings = (20.0 Btu/kWh) x (2.42) (106 $/Btu) x
(0.3923) x (163,000 kW) x (8760 hr/yr)
= $27,100/yr.
Where:
Fuel cost 2.42 $/MMBtu
Capacity Factor Base 39.23 %
High Thermal 53.43 %
Unit Rating 163.0 MW net
Thus, multiplying the heat rate improvement by fuel cost, capacity factor, unit rating,
and 8,760 hours/year will yield the annual savings. This result for the sample unit is:
Base High Thermal
60-90 Improvement $26,900 $36,600
70-90 Improvement 9,300 12,700
A similar procedure was followed to determine the cost benefit for improvement of
circulating water flow from an assumed degradation of 85% back to its full design
value. The results of the heat balance runs are shows on Table B-9. The calculation is
identical to that shown above, and the results are as follows:
Base Case High Thermal
Capacity Factor Capacity Factor
85-100% CW Flow $5,600 $7,600
B-6
10937752
Table B-9
Sample Unit Heat Rate Effect of Improved Circulating Water Flow
Circulating Water Percent Load

Inlet Temperature 25 50 75 100
40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
60 0.0 13.7 14.0 15.3
70 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
While this example does not show a large savings for heat rate improvements, a more
heavily base-loaded plant might give quite different results. In any case, a detailed
analysis is necessary for site-specific decisions.
B-7
10937752

TR-102507 Muy Bueno EPRI Limpieza Mecanica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TR-102507 Muy Bueno EPRI Limpieza Mecanica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONDENSER MICROBIOFOULING

FINAL REPORT, OCTOBER 1993

EPRI Project Managers

Waste & Water Management Program

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT

FOURTH FLOOR DATABASES, INC.

Microbiofouling of condenser surfaces can substantially increase costs at electric power

David Morris, Southern Company Services

2 BIOFOULING CHARACTERISTICS, DEVELOPMENT, AND GROWTH ................ 2-1

3 REGULATIONS AFFECTING MICROBIOFOULING CONTROL............................. 3-1

4 MICROBIOFOULING DETECTION AND MONITORING ......................................... 4-1

5 COSTS OF BIOFOULING ........................................................................................ 5-1

6 CHEMICAL TREATMENT ........................................................................................ 6-1

7 MECHANICAL CLEANING METHODS.................................................................... 7-1

A CALCULATING THE PERFORMANCE FACTOR-WORKSHEET ........................ A-1

B CALCULATING HEAT RATE ................................................................................. B-1

However, there are significant differences between once-through and recirculated

Clearly, no single problem in the water treatment process can be considered

W. G. Characklis. Biofilms. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.

A Study of MicrobioIogicalIy Influenced Corrosion in Nuclear Power Plants and a Practical

Biofilm Formation and Growth

Biofilm development consists of six steps:2

Phase 2: Logarithmic growth − No serious thermal, friction, or corrosion problems

These developing colonies produce an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) that

Biological and Chemical Composition

producing acid. Additional information about corrosion-causing bacteria can be found

Biofilm thickness is an important characteristic in analyzing biofilm processes, because

Variables that Affect the Process

Water quality considerations include the presence of microorganisms and nutrients,

Microorganisms derive energy from three sources: light, inorganic or organic

In addition to OC, nitrogen, phosphorous and phosphates must be present. Deficits in

Understanding Biofilm Development and Growth to Aid Biofouling Control

Uniformity of the Biofilm

Knowledge of biofilm formation factors can be used to develop an effective cleaning

1. S.G. Gomez de Saravia, M. F. L. de Mele, and H. A. Videla. "An Assessment of the

3. W.G. Characklis, J. D. Bryers, M. G. Trulear, and N. Zelver. "Biofouling Film

4. Characklis, BiofiIms, op. cit., pp. 195-231.

6. W. Chow. "Condenser Biofouling Control: The State of the Art." In Proceedings:

7. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., p. 109.

12. L. Morris, L. Price, and E. L. Flock. "Manganese Deposits in Utility Condensers:

13. P. A. Tyler and K. E. Marshall. "Form and Function in Manganese-Oxidizing

14. W. C. Ghiorse. "Biology of Iron- and Manganese-Depositing Bacteria." Annual Review

15. E. Gregory and J. T. Staley. "Widespread Distribution of Ability to Oxidize

17. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., pp. 219-220.

18. Ibid., p. 550.

19. Ibid., p. 554.

20. Ibid., p. 566.

21. Ibid., p. 566.

22. Ibid., p. 559.

23. T. R. Bott and M. Gunatillaka. "Nutrient Composition and Biofilm Thickness."

25. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., p. 558.

26. Ibid., p. 588.

27. Ibid., p. 559.

28. Ibid., p. 569.

29. Ibid., pp. 575-576.

30. Ibid., p. 545.

31. Chow, op. cit., pp. 2-28 to 2-30.

32. Characklis, Biofilms, op. cit., p. 559.

Clean Water Act of 1977

To be listed as a conventional pollutant, a parameter must either be oxygen-demanding,

Water Quality Act of 1987

Regulation of Microbiofouling Control

Microbiofouling is controlled in three ways: (1) addition of chemicals to the cooling