Tetra Tech, Inc.

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 phone 703
- 385
- 6000 fax 703
- 385
- 6007 TO : Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA FROM : John Sunda (SAIC) DATE: June 15 , 20 0 9
SUBJECT: Review of Existing Cooling EPA requested a review of existing cooling tower installations to examine the degree of optimization (i.e., minimized makeup withdrawals) exhibited by these s ys tems.
E stimates of theoretical make power plants and different cy cles of concentration (COC) the cooling tower variable that has the greatest influence on make requirements. A COC of 1.5 is a design maximum for saltwater. For freshwater s a COC of 1.5 is considered the baseline below which be operat ing poorl y with respect to flow reduction. considered as optimized. E stimated flow values for a COC of 2.0 midpoint between the two. Attachment A gpm/MW for each closed

- cycle facility DIF and AIF. These values are shown in comparison to the calculated make for selected COC values of 1.5, 2.0, and 4.0. Note that other process flow such as requirements for flue gas desulphurization values but this analy sis does not attempt to that show the make

- up volumes graphicall y for different plant types and how the make up volume varies with COC for an example tower. Excluding the partial ly

closed Seven operate in an optimized manner, and six operate with a COC less than (greater than twice the COC = 1.5 database.

1 Including facilities with cooling ponds. 

### MEMORANDUM

10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340

Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA John Sunda (SAIC) and Kelly Meadows 9 Review of Existing Cooling Tower Optimization EPA requested a review of existing cooling tower installations to examine the degree of optimization (i.e., minimized makeup withdrawals) exhibited by these s ys tems. stimates of theoretical make

- up volumes in gpm/MW expected for diffe rent ty pes of power plants and different cy cles of concentration (COC) were developed

. The COC is the cooling tower variable that has the greatest influence on make

- up volume requirements. A COC of 1.5 is a design maximum for saltwater. For freshwater s the baseline below which the sy stem should be considered poorl y with respect to flow reduction. A COC of 4.0 or above should be

stimated flow values for a COC of 2.0 are include Attachment A contains an anal ys is that shows the calculated cycle facility 1 that completed a detailed questionnaire These values are shown in comparison to the calculated make

for selected COC values of 1.5, 2.0, and 4.0. Note that other process flow such as

flue gas desulphurization could add up to 2.0 gpm/MW to the expected analy sis does not attempt to adjust for that. A lso included are two up volumes graphicall y for different plant types and how the make up volume varies with COC for an example tower.

ly closed

- cycle sy stems and cooling ponds, there are 20 intakes. operate in an optimized manner, seven operate in between a COC of 4.0 and 1.5,

less than 1.5. Only

2 facilities could be considered outliers he COC = 1.5 flow) and one appears to be misclassified in the

Including facilities with cooling ponds.

1 EPA requested a review of existing cooling tower installations to examine the degree of optimization (i.e., minimized makeup withdrawals) exhibited by these s ys tems. rent ty pes of The COC is up volume requirements. A COC of 1.5 is a design maximum for saltwater. For freshwater s ys tems, should be considered to A COC of 4.0 or above should be

are include d as a anal ys is that shows the calculated that completed a detailed questionnaire for both

- up volumes for selected COC values of 1.5, 2.0, and 4.0. Note that other process flow such as could add up to 2.0 gpm/MW to the expected are two graphs up volumes graphicall y for different plant types and how the make

ponds, there are 20 intakes. COC of 4.0 and 1.5, facilities could be considered outliers and one appears to be misclassified in the