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 Branch	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 for Units 3 and 4.  What is the approximate percentage of
the time that the fly ash from these units is handled in a dry fashion?

A:  1.28% of the fly is handled dry and sold: 2,959 tons in 2006.  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	18	B-12	Q: “Source of Sluice Water” is listed as 100%
“IN-Makeup” for each of the four units.  According to the directions
in Question 18, the code, “IN” should be used if raw intake water is
used, whereas “IN-Makeup” should be used if raw intake water is only
used as makeup.  Please confirm that raw intake water is used for bottom
ash sluice water (and not as makeup).

A:  Mr. Evans confirmed with the plant that 100% of the BAS water is raw
intake lake water.



3	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 settling pond for dewatering 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:  Mr. Evans explained that Georgia Power has recently decided not to
install FGD systems at Plant Branch (since completing the data request)
based on the company’s long-term air pollution control strategies
(involving all plants).



4	N	35	B-24	Q: Please explain the operation of the plant’s
once-through cooling system.  It appears from Diagram 5-1 and the
plant’s Form 2C that the wastewater generated from cooling Units 1 and
2 is handled separately from the wastewater generated from Units 3 and
4; however, the plant responded with only one wastewater flow rate in
Table 12 and Table 16.

Please provide the flow rates and frequency (hpd and dpy) of wastewater
generated from cooling each of the two sets of steam electric units. 
Please confirm that the cooling water wastewater flow rate for Units 3
and 4 is 430,000 gpm (“430,00 gpm” provided in Diagram 5-1).  

A:  The plant operates two separate once-through cooling systems (with
separate intakes).  The cooling water wastewater flow rates on Diagram
5-1 are correct (except it should be 430,000 gpm for Units 3 and 4).



5	N	37	B-25	Q: The plant responded with “N/A”.  Does this mean that
the plant has no requirements for the water used for cooling water?

A:  Yes.  The quality of the lake water is suitable.

 

6	N	43	B-26	Q: Outfalls 01B – 01F, 02B – 02D, 03C, and 04 - 29 are
not listed in Table 14 or the process diagrams.  Did they discharge in
2006?  

A:  See attached table.



7	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please confirm that pH
adjustment occurs within (as part of) the ash pond and not within a
separate tank/pond as indicated in the diagram.  

A:  pH adjustment occurs in the discharge line from the ash pond.



8	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-1 (Diagram 5-1), please confirm that the flow
rate for “RECYC-FAS” is approximately 6,900 gpm (6,970 gpm minus 1%
makeup intake water).  Is the flow rate continuous (24 hpd and 365 dpy)?

A:  Confirmed. 



9	N	47	B-28	Q: For WWT-2, please confirm that pH adjustment and chemical
precipitation typically occur within the settling pond and not within
separate vessels as shown on the diagram.  

A:  Confirmed.  WWT-2 is available for use, but has not been used for
years.



10	N	47	B-28	Q: Please confirm that the WWT-2 settling pond is dredged
upon occasion, but was not dredged in 2006 (the plant responded that the
settling pond is not dredged in Table 17, but potential sludge
generation is shown in Diagram 5-2 and Table 19).

A:  The WWT-2 settling pond is not dredged.



11	N	49	B-31	Q: For the WWT-2 settling pond, the plant provided a
residence time of 8,760 hours; however, in the Comments page, the plant
stated that the residence time is indefinite.  Please confirm the
residence time provided.

A:  “Indefinite” is the best answer. 



12	N	51	B-33	Q: For WWT-2, the “Average Dose Concentration” of
Pozzalime is listed as 0.4 g/L for one dpy.  Is 0.4 g/L the target
concentration of Pozzalime in the settling pond for the entire year or
is it the initial target concentration at the time the Pozzalime is
added?  Please confirm that chemical was added to the WWT-2 settling
pond in 2006 despite the fact that it did not receive or discharge
wastewater.

A:  Confirmed.



13	N	52	B-34	Q: For WWT-3, the plant listed an effluent flow rate of
210,000 gpd and 75 dpy; however Diagram 5-3 shows an effluent flow rate
of 30 gpm.  Please confirm that the effluent flow rate from the WWT-3
settling pond is continuous at 30 gpm (24 hpd, and 365 dpy).

A:  The values provided in Question 52 are most accurate.





