Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2006-0771-1485
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-09-15T04:00Z

Steam Electric Data Request Follow-Up Questions

Project Name:  Steam Electric Detailed Study

	Project No.:  0172.04.022.041

Company Name:  Georgia Power

	Contact Name:  William R. Evans

Plant Name:  Plant Hammond	Contact Phone Number: 404-506-7031

or Email Address:  wrevans@southernco.com

ERG Staff (or ERG Rep) Name: Sarah Holman

Company Affiliation: ERG	Date: 12/19/07

This document contains CBI:   ___  Yes      x     No

	Type of  Contact:     x      Email       x    Telephone           

General Subject:  Data Request Assistance / Follow-Up 

Follow-Up Question Number	CBI =

Yes (Y)

No (N)	Data Request Question Number	Data Request Page Number	

Question/Answer

1	N	16	B-10	Q: “Type of Fly Ash Handling System” is listed as both
wet and dry.  What is the approximate percentage of the time that the
fly ash is handled in a dry fashion?

A:  60% of the fly is handled dry and sold.  The rest of the fly ash is
sluiced, and sluicing is continuous 24 hpd, 365 dpy.  The tpd of ash
provided in Table 5 includes the fly ash sold and sluiced.

2	N	30	B-20	Q: The plant responded that it is currently
constructing/installing a wastewater treatment system to treat the
wastewater from the new FGD system; however, from the plant’s
description of the treatment system, it seems that what is under
construction is a mechanical dewatering system for the gypsum sluice
(and treatment of recycle bleed-off, defined in the data request as
“scrubber purge”, will occur in the existing ash pond).  Please
confirm that this is the case.

Additionally, the plant’s response to “Will the wastewater treatment
system treat FGD wastewater that is commingled with ash wastewater prior
to treatment” is no; however, from the plant’s explanation of the
wastewater treatment system, it seems that FGD wastewater and ash
wastewater will be commingled prior to treatment in the ash pond. 
Please explain the response to this question.

A:  Confirmed.  Unlike at the Plant Yates, at Plant Hammond, the
chlorides level will be of concern (because the scrubber is not
constructed of exotic materials like at Plant Yates), so there will be
continuous bleed-off from the scrubber recycle to the ash pond.  Gypsum
will be hauled to a landfill. 

3	N	31	B-21	Q: “Amount of Air Heater Washwater Generated” is listed
as “washwater goes to thermal drains”.  Is it possible for the plant
to estimate the amount of washwater generated?

A:  Essentially, the plant does not generate wastewater from cleaning
the air preheaters.  Steam is sprayed onto the heater baskets for
cleaning and the steam exits out the flue.  An insignificant amount of
water drains to a low volume waste drain.

4	N	35	B-24	Q: Please explain the operation of the plant’s
once-through cooling system.  

Please provide the flow rates and frequency (hpd and dpy) of wastewater
generated from cooling each of the four individual steam electric units.
 The plant’s current response contains the following discrepancies:
The total flow rate is listed as 351,389 gpm in Table 12, 380,500 gpm in
Diagram 5-1, and 256,361 gpm in Table 16.  

A:  The plant has one once-through cooling water intake, one common
tunnel for all units, and one once-through cooling water outfall.  The
once-through cooling water system is operated 24 hpd and 365 dpy.  Table
16 contains four flow rates for the individual condensers.

5	N	38	B-25	Q: The plant responded that sodium hypochlorite is used for
SE 1 and SE 2.  Does this mean that sodium hypochlorite is added to the
portions of the once-through cooling water used to cool SE 1 and SE 2?  

How many dpy is sodium hypochlorite added to the cooling systems?

A:  Yes, the sodium hypochlorite is added to the cooling water
“boxes” for SE 1 and SE 2 condensers.  The hypochlorite is added
twice a week during the months of May through September, so about 40
dpy.

 

6	N	43	B-26	Q: Outfalls 01E – 01H, 01J, and 2-11 are not listed in
Table 14 or the process diagrams.  Did they discharge in 2006?  

In Diagram 5-1, effluent from the coal pile runoff pond is listed as
Outfall 01D, but is it actually 01H?  Is the coal pile runoff itself
Outfall 01D?

A:  See attached table.

No, 01H is the emergency outfall from the coal pile runoff pond.  

7	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1, did FAS, BAS, and PMRS enter the ash pond 24
hpd and 365 dpy?  Was the recycle from the ash pond used for RECYC-FAS,
RECYC-BAS, and RECYC-PMRS 24 hpd and 365 dpy?  Is the breakout of the
recycle, “RECYC-FAS/BAS” approximately equivalent to the flow rates
of FAS, BAS, and PMRS entering the ash pond?  

A:  Yes, 24 hpd and 365 dpy.  The recycle breakout is equal to the flow
rates entering minus the 10% IN-Makeup flow.

8	N	47	B-28	Q: On Diagram 5-1 (WWT-1), the FAS flow rate is 2,720 gpm,
whereas in Table 5, the total FAS flow rate is 2,796 gpm.  Please
explain the difference.  Which flow rate is more accurate?

A:  Table 5 is more accurate.

9	N	47	B-28	Q: Does the plant have an estimate for the “IN-Makeup”
flow rate?

A:  10% of the total flow.

10	N	47	B-28	Q: Please confirm that the sludge generation for FAS, BAS,
and PMRS is “N/A”.

A:  Confirmed.

11	N	47	B-28	Q: Regarding the Low Volume Waste Basins shown in Diagram
5-1, please confirm that no wastewater treatment occurs in these basins.

A:  Confirmed.

12	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-2, please confirm that pH adjustment and
chemical precipitation occur within the settling pond and not within
separate vessels as shown on Diagram 5-2.  What chemicals are typically
added to the WWT-2 settling pond for chemical precipitation?

A:  Confirmed.  The plant has added “advanced chemicals” to the
settling pond in the past, but did not add any chemicals in 2006.

13	N	47	B-28	This information has been removed because it contains
confidential business information (CBI) per 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. 
This information can be found in the confidential record.

14	N	52	B-34	Q: For WWT-3, the plant responded that the CPR flow rate to
the WWT-3 settling pond is 36 gpm, 24 hpd, and 365 dpy (resulting in
18,921,600 gpy); however, in response to Question 11, the plant stated
that the amount of coal pile runoff in 2006 was 2,073,600 gpy over 40
days.  Please explain this difference.

Please confirm that the effluent from the WWT-3 CPR settling pond is
continuous at 36 gpm.

A:  The response to Question 11 is more accurate.  36 gpm is the
“ideal”, design flow rate.

15	N	53	B-35	This information has been removed because it contains
confidential business information (CBI) per 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. 
This information can be found in the confidential record.