Wastewater I 0 management rises

to top priority - Thermal enhancement, toxic effluents and plumes now intrude on the regulatory scene that most recently concentrated on air pollution control activities

By R. C . Rittenhouse, Senior Editor

Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA) still hold the undivided attention of a large faction of the power generation in- dustry. But, increasingly, matters related to water threaten to outflank air’s number one priority status. Pressure grows on power plant wastewater management pro- grams and clean water conformance.

However, more potentially severe stress on water related matters looms from an- other source: proposed bills that seek to revise the Clean Water Act (CWA). As they move through Congress, some ad- verse content appears likely to complicate already critical situations.

Proposed CWA revisions Last fall, the “Environmentally Speak- ing” column (POWER ENGINEERING, September 1991) reported briefly on some Edison Electric Institute (EEI) testimony given before a Senate subcommittee. It stated that:

“The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 are adequate. Changes are unneces-

Figure 1. Water treatment system at a power plant. Photograph courtesy Nalco Chemical Co.

POWER ENGINEEHINGIOCTOBER 1992

sary. That is the heart of testimony given before the Senate Subcommittee on Envi- ronmental Protection on behalf of The Edison Electric Institute (July 9, 1991). Elizabeth Bauereis, Director of Environ- mental Programs for Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., reminded the subcommittee

*-*

.....

that the states and the Environmental pro- tection Agency (EPA) have not been able to fully impkment programs found in the 1987 amendments. She urged them to provide EPA and the states the resources and time to set appropriate water quality standards and to implement their pro- grams, instead of revising the 1987 water quality provisions.

“One proposed bill is S.1081, the Wa- ter Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1991. One provision is to establish alternative effluent limitations for heat emissions (section 3 16(a))-an amazing requirement in light of all that happened years ago in the battle of thermal en- hancement.

“As Bauereis stated, ‘Years of research have shown that thermal discharges.. .sel- dom cause unacceptable impacts.’ Staff members of the bill’s sponsors have only to glance through the mountain of techni- cal data already available to support argu- ments against resurrecting that old thermal discharge chestnut. Included in that data is Academic Press Inc.’s 346-page book, Power Plant Effects on Fish and Shellfish Behavior, published in 1980. Lead author Charles H. Hocutt of the University of Maryland was one of those involved in the review of power plant effects on fish and blue crabs indigenous to the Chesa- peake Bay area. Much of the book is devoted to the effects of thermal dis- charges and contains 236 references on the effects of temperature on fish.

“One consequence of playing new leg- islative games with thermal discharges could be to scuttle a newly successful method to combat zebra mussel invasions. Environmentally benign, the method in- volves directing a warm power plant dis- charge plume back to the cooling water intake. Temporarily increased tempera- tures in the system can kill young adult zebra mussels ....”

about what power a reau- More on biofouling control methods thorized bill might give to the EPA in

(e-g. zebra mussel, Asian clam, MIC) enforcement matters.” For example, there was carried in the POWER ENGINEER- are provisions in S.1081 for EPA to with- ING October 1991 article, “Industry hold issuance of an NPDES permit if a weapons grow in biofouling battle.”

EPA hearings in 1992 -

plant tions. rious

has tM “That implic

Today, the EPA is holding hearings and she says.

10

. h :ati

vic as on

>la- se-

S,”

Committee chairman Perkins offers an-

variances in the present CWA is a very well thought-out systematic process whereby power plant discharges are eval- uated on a case-by-case basis.

By the way, all of these issues are being addressed with considerable intensi- ty behind the scenes by a number of organizations and industry committees in addition to EEL (See the section titled: ‘“Thermal’ revival shocks industry more than the fish” on page 23.)

It can’t be repeated too often. Current federal and local requirements for power plants that use once-through cooling are adequate. Each plant must meet certain limits and monitor its thermal discharges before it can acquire an operating permit. An example, given in a 1992 American Power Conference paper (see references), notes that the Illinois EPA permit for the E.D. Edwards power plant of Central Illi- nois Light Co. (CILCO) requires that there be a monthly report on the plant’s thermal impact on the Illinois River. Data must be gathered during every eight-hour shift. A temperature rise must not be more than 5 F above the water’s natural temperature and temperature levels must

other thought on 316(a). The provision for ii

Figure 2. Laboratory procedures, key to good wastewater man- agement. Photographs courtesy CHZM Hill.

22 POWER ENGINEERING/OCTOEER 1992

'Thermal ' revival shocks

here and there" exf

ntally Speaking" col- n in the August, 1983 issue of POW-

NG opened with what onsidered an over-opti- of the status of thermal

plumes. Data from endless studies clear- ly demonstrated to the iiidustry, regula- tors and intervenors that a change in the ecosystem created by a thermal dis- charge was not deleterious to the envi- ronment or waterborne creatures. That is why the recent revival of intense pressure on 316(a) shocked industry people and responsible researchers. True, unlike the long lapse in adjust- ments to the CAA, the CWA gets a legislative "review" every few years. However, with the CAA on the books, the intervenors' full attention seems turned to CWA.

It appears that some cooler heads have added an amendment to one of the proposed bills, perhaps S.1087, to con- tinue allowing applications for variances for 31 6(a). Apparently, some congres- sional staff members recognized the enormous cost of forcing 2300 power plants to build unnecessary cooling towers.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. did a study for the Edison Electric Insti- tute (EEI) showing that costs to retrofit cooling towers to power plants currently holding variances would reach $41.3 billion. Cost estimates consider 700 power plants that have 31 6(a) variances and a combined capacity of 189,000 MW (32% of total U 5. capacity). The study extrapolates cost estimates on ret- rofitting wet cooling towers to 300-MW fossil fired plants and 1 1 00-MW nuclear plants across the total number of plants. Capital costs alone, says EEI, would reach $17.2 billion for fossil and $9.4 billion for nuclear plants That is to say nothing of the costs in visibility, local esthetics and more Still, i t is worth

tive image of thermal plumes de- manded years of research and exchange of information among or- ganizations worldwide. For exam- ple, F.B. Hawes of the Central Elec- tricity Generating Board (CEGB), London, England, addressed the problem at Nuclex 78, Basel, Swit- zerland in his paper Thermal Dis- charges from Nuclear Power Stations and their Effects on the Environ- ment.' He observed that 'the dis- charge of waste heat (from power plants) in Etirope is being competent- ly managed. There is no evidence that it is giving rise to any serious ecological problems ...' He was re- sponding to continued efforts by the European Economic Community (EEC) Commission to regulate waste heat discharges.

"Earlier, in 1977, longtime reader Hawes had responded to mention in this column of a study conducted by Dr. W.A. Richkus of Martin Marietta Environmental Technology Center (see POWER ENGINEERING, August 1977, pg 32). The Richkus report is entitled 'Aquatic Impact Assessment at Calvert Cliffs.' This report, which Hawes referenced in his Nuclex pa- per, undoubtedly added vital infor- mation to the CEGB files. It showed that there were few measurable ef- fects of thermal plumes (from the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant) on Ches- apeake Bay species, including no damage to blue crabs and no delete- rious effects on the growth or mortal- ity rate of oysters or finfish.

this kind is bein organizations as-BatteI land Research Laborato i s mounting that the imp trainment upon the fish popu also is not as serious, in man as was originally beli evident in a new rep0 entitled 'The Effect of ment at Sizewell "A" Suffolk, on North Sea by A.W.H. Turnpenny and N.J. Ut- ting of Central Electricity Research Laboratories (CERL), and and J.D. Riley of the Agriculture, Fisheries (MAFF).

parable to those in any array of works in the United States, including the Cape Fear Studies which were used to evaluate the actual effect of Carolina Power & Light's Brunswick power plant upon the estuary (see 'Heat rejection systems: Meeting costs, demands and regulatory re- quirements,' POWER ENGINEER- ING, June 1983). The value of com- mercial fish killed by the Brunswick power plant intake system would equal a wholesale price of $50,000 to $220,000 (1978 dollars) after they reached adult size. When all the facts were in, CP&L was able to convince the regulators that costly cooling towers were not necessary to protect marine life here. Adjustments in the intake velocity was one of four measures taken to reach a compro- mise solution . . . . ' I

"Findings in this study

reviewing the juncture we had reached

not exceed maximum limit\ more thiiii I (k of operating hours during a l 2 - i i i o i i t h pe- riod. The permit states tl ic' ni;i\itiiuiii a \ ~ - erage i-iver tenipei-attire foi- each h a i f yx.

The CILCO author\ dc.;crihed the de- sign aiid deve lo piiie t i I o 1' an ;I ti ton1 at cd personal coiiiputei--bawd dara acqui\ i t ioi i system foi- reporriii: {lis pl : i i i t ' \ t l ic i - i i ia l ii i ipacr on i ts water v iu rcc . '1'11~ \! \ tcn i rep I aces iii ;I n 11 ii I I y i i c r'i r e d [re jx I t - i \ . 1 n i - ~ I - O S + ;iccu~-ac! i n ciilciil,itinp !.lo\\ t;itc\.

POWER ENGlNEERlNGiOCTOBER 1992

aiid collects and stores data. I t is iii;ide up of ii 1x1-sona 1 coin put er , program ma h le local controller and field instl-unieiitntioii.

According 10 the authors, two advnii- iagcj gained by the computer systein are ( I ) iiiiproved pump and coridenscr pci.- I'oriixuice. and ( 2 ) electronic xcquisition f o 1- c ii \' i inn 11 i e ti t ;i I n1on i t ni-i tic. TI1 i s pro- v ide\ ;I Ii iyl ici- deyec of confideiicc Njlieri

t l ic power pl;iiit I\ opera(ing nc3I conipli- ; i n w l imit\.

were born. One method to combat heavy metals

emissions in wastewater employs iron co- precipitation. Considerable work was done some years ago in developing the original process for wastewater treatment and now it appears to be on the verge of greater application as regulatory pressures grow.

Iron eo-precipitation According to Dr. Babu Nott of EPRI, iron co-precipitation and wastewater treatment are part of an overall series of scoping studies on toxics removal. These studies grew more intense in recent years, long before the CWA proposals surfaced. The whole area of water toxics management is involved, including detection limits and wastewater treatment technologies. How- ever, the studies also are examining close- ly all upcoming environmental regulations and anticipated potential demands. That effort involves discovering whether

ly difficult to measure them at all, let alone accurately.

As this important project moves along, researchers gain a clearer understanding of the capabilities of special processes. One example is the validation of the graphite furnace atomic absorption spec- troscopy method in the measurement of heavy metals. “In future work (1994), EPRI will be evaluating sampling and analytical techniques for organic com- pounds,” Chow explains.

The biggest question remaining is how to deal with the sludge from water treat- ment processes that remove heavy metals. This sludge may not be combustible in a boiler as are organic compounds. Another hard question is: Do heavy metals make the sludge a hazardous waste? EPA is working on that at its laboratories in Cin- cinnati and Las Vegas.

As for iron co-precipitation, treatment of wastewaters with sulfide-assisted iron co-precipitation plays a major role at the

MW Unit 2 are gadoil fired. Unit 3 is a 334-MW coal-fired plant that also bums some refuse-derived fuel. Unit 1 has a once-through cooling system on a lake. Waters that leave the plant include cool- ing tower blowdown and excess process water that are fed to a large wetlands area. This includes runoff from the coal and ash piles, combustion waste landfill, scrubber thickener overflow and more that pass through the wastewater treatment system before moving to the wetlands. Sanitary wastewaters feed to the local sewage treatment plant which, in tum, supplies makeup water to the power plant. This concept of reuse reduces the load on the wetlands receiving body to about I . 1 million gallons per day. The plant uses water that initially comes from the Lake- land sewage treatment plant.

Full details on the system and experi- ence at C. D. McIntosh are presented in a 1990 International Water Conference (IWC) paper by C.D. Garing of the utility

present technologies, including iron and L.C. Webb and K.R. Weiss of co-precipitation, will do the best Black & Veatch titled “Treatment job. Through these studies, “we of McIntosh Power Plant Process will learn whether we should con- Wastewaters by the Sulfide-Assist- sider other technologies to address ed Iron Coprecipitation Process.” the latest toxics issue,” concludes The authors concluded their pa- Dr. Nott. per by noting in part that “The iron

The specific study that should co-precipitation system- has demon- provide direction for EPRI’s re- strated economical treatment of search and development in the mixed power plant wastewaters and overall wastewater treatment for the ability to achieve low effluent toxics is expected to be finished by metals concentrations. The capabil- early 1993. As Winston Chow of ity of feeding a soluble sulfide en- EPRI observes, some of the pro- hances the process by allowing fur- posed clean water bills that are ther reduction of metals. moving through Congress share one “The capital and operating costs potentially painful goal. Summaries of the sulfide-assisted iron co-pre- of these bills indicate that they are cipitation process compare favor- targeting toxics- trace (minute) ably with the costs for altematives metals and trace organics in the such a5 alkaline chemical precipita- discharge. Further, the industry and tion. The design selected at Lake- legislative staffs are discussing the merits of basing regulations on bioassays and bioavailabilities of chemicals rather than establishing exact limits on individ- ual elements as was done previously.

The toxics issue Chow explains that EPRI’s work on water toxics measurement is under RP1851, a project with TRW, Inc. and currently managed by Dr. Nott. I t has the title of PISCES-Utility Aqueous Discharge Moni- toring. This is part of an overall program (Le. Power Plant Integrated Systems; Chemical Emission Studies) that address- es toxics in a multi-media framework. In this project, an interlaboratory round rob- in study, TRW sends samples to 25 lab- oratories and EPRI receives measurements in return. The purpose of the project. which began i n 1981, is to determine the capabilities and limitations of approved or recommended methods of sampling and analysis as defined by EPA. Unfortunate- ly , when dealing with very lo\v concentra- tions of chemicals. i t hccomes increasing-

24

C.D. McIntosh power plant of the Lake- land (Fla.) Department of Electric and Water Utilities. The treatment, part of an overall water management plan devised in 1986 and in full operation since 1989, achieved low effluent metals concentra- tions (Tables 1, 2 and 3) at an economical cost. Total operating cost of treatment per 1000 gallons of wastewater was about 89$ from October 1989 through June 1990. This included 65$ for labor. The balance of costs was for caustic soda, ferrous sulfate, sodium hydrosulfide, and poly- mer.

Note that costs of treatment are not significantly increased by the use of sodi- um hydrosulfide (NaHS) as a supplemen- tal additive. Lower effluent metals con- centrations are indicated by the results of test runs with the additive. The capital and operating costs of sulfide-assisted iron eo-precipitation compai-e favorably with [hose of alternatives such as alkaline chemical precipitation.

h4clnto4i’s 90-MW U n i t I and 1 IS-

land may be appropriate for other wastewater treatment applications where a number of metals require reduction to low limits. ”

Coauthor Charles Garing reports, at this writing, that the system “still works fine” and that there has been virtually no change in its effectiveness since the IWC paper was presented.

Defininghonitoring limits Dr. Nott’s immediate activity with RP 185 I focuses on discussing the definitions of detection and quantitation limits. Of major concern and the subject of consider- able debate, these definitions must be applied for low-level analyses of waste- waters for compliance monitoring.

Note that compliance monitoring is dom- inated by two types of permits: those for a zero or nondetectable discharge, and those where discharge limits (not to exceed a ceitain numeric value) are set. These per- mits requiie that a detection and/or quantita- tive levcl be set for compliance monitoring.

I n i t i;illy pub1 ished i 11 thc Fedcrol /ic?gis-

POWER ENGlNEERlNGiOCTOBER 1992

fer in the early 1980s, these definitions originally were not intended to be used for compliance monitoring. However, some lo- cal and state regulators use them for this purpose.

EPRI communicates with other organiza- tions, including the American Water Works Association (AWWA), on the situation, which affects most industries, not just the power generation industry. The American Chemical Society Committee on Environ- mental Improvement (ACS-CEI) prepared some revisions of EPA definitions to re- place the present method detection limit (MDL) and the practical quantitation limit (PQL). ACS-CEI has presented the revi- sions at several meetings, inzluding one in April, 1992 in San Francisdo.

The committee feels that PQLs lack a strong technical basis and the MDL defini- tion,, among other things, is misleading because it uses the word “limit,” which is a misnomer in this context. ACS-CEI at- tempted to provide fewer and clearer defini- tions and included recommendations and information on usage. It also replaced the word “limit” with “level.” The committee may introduce other adjustments to gain more reliable detection capabilities.

More work is needed, according to Dr. Nott. He explains that the improved ACS- CEI measurement levels continue to “leave a lot to be desired, especially for compli- ance monitoring from the industrial sector’s point of view.” Hence, EPRI has devel- oped some new definitions for compliance monitoring detection and qualitation levels. An abstract of an oral presentation titled. “Establishing compliance detection and quantitation levels,” given at the latest ACS-CEI meeting, follows (a technical pa- per with this title is being prepared by R. F. Maddalone, J . K. Rice, B. C. Edniondson. and B. R. Nott):

“Current definitions for detection and quantitation levels do not specify their in- tended use and consequently may be ap- plied inappropriately. There is an important distinction between measurement levels that are developed for quality control purposes in a single laboratory and measurement levels that apply to compliance monitoring. Quality control levels are used by single laboratories to ensure that a particular ana- lytical procedure is in control at a particular time. In compliance monitoring, measure- ments are made, often over an extended period and by different laboratories. to de- tennine if enforceable standards are being attained. The detection and quantitation lev- els to be applied to compliance measure- ments need to reflect the greater variability inherent in this situation.

“The ACS-CEI proposed MDL, RDL and RQL have four ciitical limitations when used for compliance monitoring. They use the temi ‘interlabratoy precision’ when they mean ‘pooled single operator preci- sion’ (as per ASTM D 7777j. They permit the use of single operator based levels for compliance monitorin:. ii circumstance re-

POWER ENGlNEERlNGiOCTOBEA 1992

1

,+.;fable 3. Process wastewater ‘treatment system operating costs.*

quiring interlaboratory-based levels. They use single point estimates of precision at or near zero to compute confidence intervals far up-scale from zero. They do not take advantage of USEPA, EPRI, ASTM and other method validation data as could be done by the use of regression expressions of precision versus true concentration. The authors propose the following definitions instead:

Compliance Monitoring Detection Level (CMDL)-the lowest true concentration at which there is at least a 99% level of confidence that the result of a single analy- sis by any laboratory in control for a specif- ic analyte in a common sample is statistical- ly greater than zero (or a blank) for a given method and matrix.

Compliance Monitoring Quantitation Level (CMQL)-the lowest true concentra- tion at which there is a 99% level of confidence that the result of a single analy- sis by any laboratory in control for a specif- ic analyte in a common sample is statistical- ly greater than the CMDL for a given

Labor 0.647

Total 0.892 *Based on data, October 1989 through June 1990.

method and matrix. “The CMDL and CMQL emphasize the

interlaboratory nature of compliance moni- toring. They benefit from the use of the full range of available statistical data (regression equations are used to interpolate the con- centration that exactly meets the definition). The CMDL and CMQL are unambiguous regarding their intended application and are computed from the actual precision associ- ated with the analysis at the respective levels.

“It is hoped that the environmental coni- munity will recognize the importance of clearly and unambiguously defining scien- tifically CMDL and CMQL computed from appropriate interlaboratory precision regres- sion expressions. EPRI is fully committed to supporting such an effort in order to avoid disagreement on the validity of envi- ronmental measurements.”

Scrubber wastewater The demands of the CAA shift probleins froin the air to wastewater streams or solid wastes, which must be recycled or land- filled. In any case, clean air does not necessarily mean that we must have dirty water.

The author of one POWER-GEN ’91

paper expressed similar thoughts in refer- encing legislation that was passed in Ger- many in 1983. Power plants there had to comply with SO,, nitrogen oxide (NO,) and flyash limitations over a short period of time. They responded by installing flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technology that pro- duces wallboard quality gypsum, The choice of a system that produces a salable item avoided the high Costs of landfilling disposable sludge in Germany. The technol- ogy -wet limestone forced oxidation (LSFO-WB)-shifts disposal pressures from landfilling sludge to extra wastewater handling. Although FGD wastewater flow is only about 1 gpm per 5 M W of scrubbed generating capacity, it requires separate and special treatment for disposal or reuse in the power plant. Author M. K. Mierzejewski, senior process engineer, Infilco Degremont Inc., characterized FGD wastewater as fol- lows: has high concentrations of chloride ions (20-40,OOO mgA or more); pH usually is 5-6 S.U. but can be 0-2 S.U. from a prescrubber; contains 2000-3000 mgd sus- pended solids (e.g. flyash, unreacted lime- stone, gypsum); usually is supersaturated in gypsum; contains heavy metals at several mgll concentrations; and may have a chem- ical oxygen demand (COD) of 200-250 mg/l due to soluble organic and inorganic species.

Options for treating FGD wastewater in- clude (a) using a dedicated physico-chemi- cal plant with neutralization, sedimentation

es, or (b) treating by evaporatiodcrystallization. Costs of the lat- ter choice dictate its adoption only where zero discharge is required. Further, Mierze- jewski cautions that there seems to be little experience in the treatment of unblended FGD wastewaters by this means. Many questions remain, “but pilot evaporator tests in Germany should yield valuable de- sign infomiation.” This could include an- swers to what to do with the remaining highly soluble crystallized cake, which can’t be landfilled.

The recommended wastewater handling program includes a dedicated (physico- chemical I wastewater treatment plant. Treatment in such plants progresses through eight stages-oxidation, pH elevatioddesa- turation. heavy metal removal, coagulation, flocculation. clarification, pH adjustment and sludge thickening and dewatering. A wastewater plant design must be based on the known anaIyses of the coal, limestone and makeup water. About 24 of these plants are operating or under construction in Gennany.

The first such dedicated water treatment plant i n the United States was due to begin operation in the spring of 1992 at Northem lndiana Public Seivice Co.’s Bailly generat- ing station.

Combined-cycle plant permit Some types of power plants may face s p e ci;d challenges i n obtaining a wastewater discharge permit. Combined-cycle plants,

25

Figure 3. Water management system. Photograph by Mike McPheeters, courte- sy Black & Veatch Engineers-Architects.

which are composed of combustion turbines and steam turbines, fit that mold. Some consultants feel that these plants may be forced into choosing a zero discharge sys- tem. Because combined-cycle plants often are sited in densely populated area\. they must meet high \vatei- quality requirements and minimize wastewater discharges. The review and permitting procedure for licens- ing usually is costl!, and takes :in inordinate amount of time. By opting for zem dis- charge, the plant avoids a major de,oree of uncertainty in gaining approval.

The authors of :i POWER-GEN '91 p"- per provided guidelines for cutting costs of installing and using ;I zero discharge sys- tem. They suggest that combined-cycle power plants i n pniticular should: (;I) maxi- mize recycling within the plant prior to the concentration of the waste streanis with simple. conventional treatments such as oil/water separation. clarification and dewa- tering of solids: ( b ) minimize the size of expensive waste evapoi-atoi-s/crqtallizei-s that are needed to reduce the voluiiie of wastewater; and (c ) eliminate cei-taiii cate- gories of wastewater. such a5 demineralizer wastes. by using poi-table or lea\ed equip- ment rather than in\talling espeiisii'e coii- centrators.

"Are Combined Cycle Plant\ being Driven to Zero Ili.;charge'!" is the question asked by :iuthoi-\ P. Kumar Sinha and Ram G . Narula o f Hecl;tcl Coi-p and G . F. Weidinger o f PCiLQ.E/Bec.litt~I Genwt t ing Co. in the title 01' their piipei..

Pi-opased C U ' i i . ~ ~ i ~ i t l i ( ~ ~ t / ~ i t i ( i t i bill\. including S . I O X I . \\oiiI~l zoiitiiiuc' to I-e- quire ;I po\vci- p1.iiit t o cIc%iiioii\tr;ite I ( \

26

efforts to prevent pollution before it re- ceives a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Ac- curate groundwater and NPDES analyses depend on reliable procedures.

Groundwater and lab QA/QC Cincinnati Gas & Electric (CG&E) i n - proved its procedures by applying pi-inci- ples found in EPRl's "Quality Assui-awe and Quality Control (QAIQC) for I 3 i v - ronmental Lnboratorieh: Design Guidc- lines" (EPRI GS-6258, March 1989). 'The company estahlishcd chemisti-y labor:~tory procedures for analyzing g round \vakr at its new W.H. Zimmer power plant arid gained several benefits, according to D . 1 . Horn and David A. Ledonne of CG&E.

Most apparent is the benefit of bringing all chemical analyses in-house. 'This re- duces turnaround time and improves ac- countability over contract laboratoi-ies. Further. CG&E will save about $ 1 .S mil- lion over the Ziminer plant's lifc on these services.

The QA/QC procedures also are used at Zimmer for fuel. process chemistry and lubricating oil analyses. Impi-ovemcnts made in these areas appear likely to save millions more. For example, reduced cor- rosion and iiiipi-oved equipment availabil- ity results from better analysis capabili- ties. Similar pi-ograins at CG&E's East Bend. Miami Fort and W.C. l3eck.joi-d power plants :ire expected to produce ail-

other $400.000 per year i n \aviiigs foi- e iiv i iroii me ntn I test i rig a Io ne

ensure continued New York state cefiifi. cation of chemistry laboratories at two of its power plants. Environmental permit monitoring then was possible in-house. which saves more than $91.000 annually or $I million-plus over the next 20 years. Further. use of these improved QA/QC techniques for boiler water analyses al- lows quicker response to system upsets,

Whether the activity is the development or upgrading of a complete wastewater management program, examining the fine points of laboratory quality control, or defining environmental measurements of unmeasurable constituents, the power generation industry is responding well. Research and development continues and the technologies are keeping pace. The hope is that there will be no unnecessary rush to do something, anything, as was the case with the CAA.

Fortunately, ' at this writing, there doesn't seem to be a great urgency to pass a CWA reauthorization bill in 1992. Many observers are guessing that a bill could be passed next year, but possibly not until 1994. Much of this delay can be traced to continued negotiations over the definition of wetlands. But that is another story. END

Kelcrenccs " D c s i y iind Development of a PC Based Data ,Acquisition Systeni for Automating Therm;rl liiiiiact Reporting," by B.K. Garman. P.B. Ciii-tcr and J .A . Davis. Central Illinois Light Co. 1092 American Power Conference. "I3usiiie\s Opportunities Afforded by the Reau- rlioriL;it1on of the Clean Water Act (CWA)." by I .D . Pigorr and J.J . Houlihan. Jr.. Katten Mu- cliiii R Zavis (Chicago I a u firiii), Intcrnal sctiiiii;ir. June 23. 1992. "Rcvie\v of Power Plant Siting Requirements and Co\ts." by K. E. Parsons C I ( I / . Internatton- t i l Technology Corp. and E. C . Trexler. U.S. Dept. of Enci-gy. Air &L Waste Man, 'I g ement Assn . Ariiiual Meeting. June 1992.

+large: water and wastewater lions," by Lester C. Webb and

Kenneth R . Weiss of Black & Veatch. POW- ER ENGINEERING. Ju ly 1989. "Eliminaiioii of Heavy Metals out of Blou-down of B Wet Gas Scrubber by Precipitation." by M.M. Swiiinen. Drew Industrial Div.. Rotter- dam. Nertierlands. International Coal Confcr- ence. September 1990. "Dcmon.ti-atioii Project Flue Gas Deaulphuriza- t ioii Itisrallation." April I992 report by Novein, Netherlands q e n c y for energ! and manage- lllelll. "Torrs Reduction Evaluationa Procedures and Caw Hi\torics." by D.C. Finn. D.R. Sharer ;tiid T.1 O'Toole. Chester Engineer\. 1991 liitcriiatioiial Water Conference. "Testin? 1he Waters" by Charles Courant. Oak Kidgc Kiitintiiil Laboratory EEl's Julg/Au$ust IO92 1JlZi.il i(, /'<,I s/ll"'"l'i'.'

13, i l l ~ i ~ t ~ l l ! l l ~ \ .

/ ' l - lJi '?l ' t / l l i?\: ~ ~ l I l ~ l ~ l l ~ l I ~ ~ l l f ~ i / \i Uii'l ~ ~ l l l ~ l ~ < ' l f ~ ~ ~ ~ .

October I 900. / l l r l ~ l l i ~ i ~ i ~ l l l i f I I I ; I I< ' l C o l l ~ l - < ~ l l c ~ r ,

OcI(1bcr I" I ":\tixl! \ I \ , i t id Rc.iic.\\ til. EP.4 Disch,usc Moiii- to1 in? licport 1'01 Electric Uti IOOTO I . l~'111.11 Repori (.3 I2 p

POWER ENGii.iEERiNGiOCTGEER i 3 3 2