1

Site Visit Report

Wateree Station

142 Wateree Station Road

Eastover, SC 29044

February 10, 2009

1.0 Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of developing 

316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that reflect the best technology

available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact for all existing 

power plants and manufacturing facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is

visiting electric generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling 

water intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at typical facilities, including 

the site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the selection 

and performance of CWIS technologies. EPA is also visiting facilities to better 

understand cooling water use and specific issues or technologies that can affect 

316(b) compliance. Wateree Station (Wateree) was selected for a site visit due to 

its use of a retrofitted recirculating cooling water system.

2.0 Facility Description

Wateree Station is owned and operated by South Carolina Electric and Gas 

(SCE&G) and is located in rural Eastover, South Carolina along the Wateree 

River. The facility is located on approximately 2300 acres. Wateree Station 

employs 105 people and began operation in 1970. 

Cooling and process water withdrawals from and wastewater discharges to the 

Wateree River are regulated under NPDES permit number SC0002038 which 

expired on May 31, 2005. SCE&G submitted its NPDES permit application in a 

timely manner and is awaiting renewal of its permit by the state.

3.0 Electricity Generation and Transmission

Wateree Station has two generating units. Both Units 1 and 2 have generating 

capacities of 370 MW at full load. Units 1 and 2 began operation in 1970 and 

1971, respectively. The fuel source for both units is eastern bituminous coal.

The overall capacity utilization rate (CUR) at Wateree Station is approximately

85%. That is, the plant is always operating, but cycles its load to respond to 

peaks. 

The facility has two routine two week maintenance outages that occur during the 

spring and fall. The facility also has an 8-10 week turbine unit outage 

approximately every 5 years for unit overhaul. 
2

Like the generating portion of Wateree Station, the transmission system is owned 

by SCE&G, but is operated by a different business unit.

4.0 Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

Both generating units at Wateree Station operate with closed cycle recirculating 

systems (CCRS). Each unit has a dedicated CCRS. 

Each generating unit originally had individual CWISs that provided once-through 

cooling water. The intake structures are located in an approximately 500 foot 

long intake canal connected via culverts to the Wateree River. Each intake 

structure had two intake pumps and four standard traveling screens. The throughscreen velocity is unknown, but based on responses to EPA’s industry

questionnaire was estimated to be 2.3 fps. The design intake flow (DIF) of 

cooling water withdrawal was approximately 490 mgd (170,000 gpm) per unit. 

At that time, the permit allowed for up to two-thirds of the river flow to be pulled 

into the plant as cooling water.

Wateree’s discharge point to the Wateree River is on the opposite side of the 

facility as the intake screens and empties directly into the river.

5.0 Impingement and Entrainment Information

Wateree Station has not conducted any source water monitoring, impingement or 

entrainment studies.

6.0 Cooling Tower Feasibility

To address 316(a) concerns, the facility was originally constructed with two 

“helper towers” located near its discharge point. The facility passed 100% of its 

discharge flow through the helper towers and was able to alter the towers’ 

operation depending on their needs; different combinations of cells and fans could 

be operated independently depending on the temperature needs. 

However, the Wateree River experienced an extreme drought for several years. 

Due to the drought and the temperature of the river water, Wateree was unable to 

meet its cooling water requirements or its required discharge temperatures. 

As a result, Wateree Station converted to closed-cycle cooling in 2006 by

constructing new cooling towers.

1

 The facility tied in Unit 2 first and Unit 1 six 

months later. Each retrofitted fiberglass mechanical draft CCRS consists of ten 

cells with standard GEA fill in a back-to-back configuration (five cells each side). 

 

1 The helper towers are located on a different part of the site than the newer towers. One helper tower 

collapsed some time ago and it not usable. The second has been decommissioned and the facility is in the 

process of determining what to do with the equipment.
3

Each tower has two fixed speed circulating water pumps each rated at 123.8 mgd 

(86,000 gpm) and uses ten 200 horsepower fans. The facility designed each unit’s 

tower basins to allow for expansion of 4 extra cells per unit. 

Wateree Station requires a total of 16 mgd (11,000 gpm) of make-up cooling 

water for the CCRS systems.2 Wateree continues to obtain make-up water from 

the intake canal, but replaced the circulating pumps with much smaller pumps to 

provide makeup water. The new system passes make-up water through the 

existing coarse mesh traveling screens3and then through a series of 10 micron 

sand filters that backflush automatically at a minimum of every 120 hours or more 

frequently if solids accumulation becomes an issue.

4

 The facility installed the 

sand filters to address concerns with river pollutants associated with run-off from 

local dairy farms. A second filtration loop withdraws approximately 1 mgd (700 

gpm) from within the cooling tower basin to further remove solids.

The CCRS at Wateree is automatically controlled through a remote control center 

equipped with back-up battery systems. The facility adds corrosion inhibitors, 

dispersant, and biocide (in the form of 12.5% sodium hypochlorite) to the water in 

the cooling towers. Through an automated system, Wateree regularly monitors 

the turbidity and pH levels in the recirculated water. The towers run at 2.7 cycles 

in the summer and 4.3 cycles in the winter. Blowdown flows are approximately

1.7 mgd (1200 gpm) per tower in the summer (at full load) and 720,000 gpd (500 

gpm) in the other seasons.

Facility representatives noted the biggest challenges in retrofitting its site to 

CCRS were underground springs in the area where the towers were constructed. 

The facility noted no other issues associated with the retrofit including permitting 

(they were required to obtain a wetlands permit), noise, air concerns, etc. The 

towers are also fitted with drift eliminators, but not plume or noise abatement. 

The entire construction project took two years, while the actual tie-in required 

about an 8 week outage.

Facility representatives indicated that the operation of CCRS was fairly smooth 

and that the CCRS has been reliable.

Finally, facility representatives stated that the facility did not experience a 

reduction in power output upon CCRS retrofit. Rather, they experienced an 

increase in annual power output because they were no longer limited by their 

previous summer to winter differential associated with 316(a) limits. Facility

representatives also stated that the condensers are much cleaner than before, as 

mud and debris from river water is no longer present in the cooling water flow; 

 

2 The CWIS has two 11,000 gpm makeup pumps but only needs to operate one; the other is a backup.

3

Facility representatives noted that they intend to remove the traveling screens in the near future, leaving 

only the trash rack at the CWIS.

4 Wateree noted that the sand filters have yet to reach the required cleaning level so that, in effect, the sand 

filters are backwashed every 120 hours irrespective of the need for cleaning.
4

this has reduced maintenance and improved the efficiency of the condenser. 

Additionally, because Wateree installed new transformers as part of its CCRS 

retrofit, it also obtained additional electrical capacity within the plant.

Wateree indicated that the total capital cost for the two closed cycle recirculating 

systems was $65 million and estimates total chemical costs to be $200,000 –

250,000 per year. Facility representatives indicated that the O&M costs 

associated with the CCRS were less than those associated with the helper towers.

7.0 Debris Handling

Wateree does not have significant problems with debris loading. 

8.0 Repowering/Future Uses

SCE&G has not allocated any funds in its current capital budget for re-powering 

or additional units. However, as explained above, the facility designed the towers 

to allow for possible expansion. 

9.0 Cooling Ponds

There are no cooling ponds onsite.

10.0 Ownership

Wateree is owned by SCE&G, an investor-owned company.

11.0 316(a)

Following conversion to closed-cycle cooling, Wateree meets all 316(a) 

requirements.

12.0 Ash Handling

Units 1 and 2 have wet bottom ash handling. Bottom ash is sluiced and sent to a 

series of clay lined ash ponds. The first pond (approximately 80 acres) receives 

the ash and provides some settling. The first pond discharges to the second pond 

(also approximately 80 acres) which provides additional settling. The discharge 

from the second pond is treated with sulfuric acid and/or caustic to maintain an 

effluent pH of 7. 

Fly ash is shipped off-site for sale, frequently to cement companies. Prior to 

being shipped off-site for sale, high carbon content fly ash is sent to a “carbon 

burnout” unit on-site. Carbon burnout is a process in which high carbon content 

ash is sent through a furnace allowing for heat recovery and a higher grade of 

resulting ash for re-sell. 
5

13.0 Air Emissions Controls

Units 1 and 2 are equipped with baghouses for particulate control and SCRs 

(which are operated year round) for NOx control. They are planning on installing 

FGD systems in the spring of 2010 as well. As part of that installation, Wateree 

Station is currently constructing an on-site landfill to handle the associated FGD 

solid wastes. The landfill is designed to meet all applicable state (SCDHEC) solid 

waste requirements including a composite liner (clay liner and geosynthetic/clay

liner), leachate collection system, and monitoring wells. Leachate from the 

landfill will flow into a holding pond and then be transferred to the first ash pond 

discussed in Section 12.0. 

As indicated in Section 2.0, at the time of the site visit, the facility’s NPDES 

permit had expired. The main issue that delayed the permit reissuance is local 

protests of the proposed landfill. Wateree indicated the permit was issued and 

SCE&G filed a subsequent permit modification application.

Attachments

Attachment A List of Attendees

Attachment B Aerial Photos

Attachment C Cooling Tower Design Specifications 

Attachment D Site Visit Photos
6

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA

Jan Matuszko, EPA

Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech

Steve Summer, SCANA Services, Corporate Environmental Services

Milton Quattlebaum, SCANA Services, Corporate Environmental Services

Mark Ferguson, SCANA Services, Corporate Environmental Services

April Kelly, SCE&G, Wateree Environmental and Safety Supervisor

Robbie Padget, SCE&G

Oscie Brown, SCE&G
Copyrighted page(s) have been removed from 

this document. 

Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public 

Reading Room to view this document. 

Address: 

1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
8

Attachment C—Cooling Tower Design Specifications

Please see the attached materials.

Attachment D—Site Visit Photos

Please see the attached materials.