CONDENSATE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH PRESSURE CO-GENERATION FACILITIES

R. Henry Weed, P. E. Michael L. Wisdom, P. E.

ABSTRACT
Development of cogeneration facilities requires careful analysis of the economic and operational impact of using return condensate from the host plant for the high-pressure boilers. Acceptance or rejection of the condensate returned by a host can significantly alter the process design basis for the cycle makeup, chemical treatment requirements, and wastewater handling systems. Developers that fail to conduct a thorough economic analysis can expect to have significant operational and maintenance problems with these systems and suffer serious losses in project profitability and operational reliability. Two case histories are discussed which demonstrate the results of inadequate assessment of return condensate quality.

Figure 1: Condensate pipe corrosion.

els in the condensate. These condensate handling practices contribute to poor quality condensate, which, if not adequately addressed, can put an entire cogeneration project at risk.

CURRENT PRACTICES
Developers of cogeneration projects usually plan for the thermal host to return all condensate to the cogeneration facility. In most cases, a cogeneration facility is added to an existing facility, where the prospect of lower steam costs and/or power costs is the driving force behind the project. The prevalent attitude is, its only condensate. This mind-set is a root cause of condensate handling problems at the cogeneration facility, as neither the developer nor the steam host wants the investment in a condensate treatment system. The steam hosts condensate handling practices are normally consistent with running steam generators operating below 900 psig (6.21 MPa). Typically, filtration and sodium cycle ion exchange are the only water treatment processes used for the makeup water. Even poor quality condensate is considered an improvement in overall makeup quality. In most petrochemical plants and refineries, process pressures are greater than steam pressures, to minimize product contamination. But this practice contaminates the condensate when process heat exchanger leaks occur. In some plants air intrusion or corrosion results in high iron lev-

WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

Cogeneration facilities operating above 1000 psig (6.89 MPa) have significantly more restrictive water purity requirements than most host plants. In recent years, as E and F-class heavy industrial gas turbines have been deployed to reduce heat rates and lower unit installed costs, water treatment needs have changed significantly. These changes include the need for: Demineralized water for cycle makeup Boiler feedwater with very low iron and copper levels High purity steam with low organic carbon content Table 1 provides a comparison of the current ASME consensus water quality limits for steam generators operating at pressures from 600 psig to 1500 psig (4.15 to 10.34 MPa). Note the increasing level of feedwater purity requirements as pressure increases. Because condensate return may make up a large portion of the total boiler feedwater, its purity must also increase as boiler pressure increases.

1998, BetzDearborn Inc. All rights reserved.

Table 1:

ASME Suggested Water Chemistry Limits.

601-750 (4.15-5.17) 751 900 (5.186.21) 901 1000 (6.22 6.89) 1001 1500 (6.90 10.34)

Drum Operating Pressure, psig (MPa) FEEDWATER Dissolved Oxygen, ppm O2 Total Iron, ppm Fe Total Copper, ppm Cu Total Hardness, ppm as CaCO3 pH @ 25C Preboiler System Protection Chemicals, ppm Nonvolatile TOC, ppm as C Oily Matter, ppm BOILER WATER Silica, ppm SiO2 Total Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 Free OH Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 Specific Conductance, S/cm STEAM PURITY Total Dissolved Solids, ppm

< 0.007 0.025 0.02 0.2 8.3-10.0 NS < 0.5 < 0.5 30 < 200 NS 1500-300

< 0.007 0.02 0.015 0.1 8.3-10.0 NS < 0.5 < 0.5 20 < 150 NS 1200-200

< 0.007 0.02 0.01 0.05 8.8 9.6 VAM < 0.2 < 0.2 8 < 100 NS 1000 200

< 0.007 0.02 0.01 ND 8.8 9.6 VAM < 0.2 < 0.2 2 NS ND 150 0.1

0.5-0.1

0.5-0.1

0.5 0.1

NS = Not Specified ND = Not Detectable VAM = Volatile Alkaline Materials Note (1) Refer to all applicable notes from ASME associated with this table for important information.

In new cogeneration facilities, the amount of condensate returned, both process and turbine, constitute a large percentage of the total boiler feedwater flow. Therefore, analysis of the quality and quantity of condensate available is an important design consideration in project development.

and operations and maintenance (O&M) cost analysis of the options is the best way to evaluate the various configurations. The economic impact of the alternatives must be communicated to the project development team.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The options for condensate treatment vary significantly from no treatment to full-flow condensate polishing. The configurations vary from plant to plant, depending on the expected condensate contamination and the pressure of the cogeneration facility boiler. Based on an economic evaluation, the capital and operating costs associated with treating the condensate return may exceed the value of the condensate. During the project development cycle, decisions are made regarding the return and use of process condensate from the steam host. It is important that developers, negotiators, and technical mangers understand the financial impact of these decisions. The return of condensate impacts many aspects of plant operation, including consumptive use, water treatment, and even waste discharge permits. A capital 2

No Condensate Return
It is easy to eliminate many problems by just not accepting any return condensate. However, most hosts and cogeneration plants are unwilling to accept the idea of disposing of hot water, which costs a great deal of money to produce. First, the environmental impact of adding an additional waste stream may not be acceptable to the permitting authority. Second, there may be another use for the condensate, such as makeup to the cooling tower, thereby decreasing raw water makeup and blowdown from the tower. Third, loss of the heat value of the condensate can affect the overall heat balance. Finally, the need for additional raw water and the high cost associated to treat it usually make the option of not accepting the condensate return economically unattractive.

Table 2:
Stream

Water Use to Replace Condensate.

100% Condensate Return 100 (23) 0 0 3 (0.7) 3 (0.7) 100 (23) 3 (0.7) 0% Condensate Return 0 7 (1.6) 34 (7.8) 2 (0.4) 43 (9.8) 100 (23) 143 (32)

Condensate Return, gpm (m3/h) Filter Backwash, gpm (m3/h) Reverse Osmosis Reject, gpm (m3/h) Demineralizer Regen waste, gpm (m3/h) Total Waste Flow, gpm (m3/h) Total Demin Outlet, gpm (m3/h) Total Raw Water Consumed, gpm (m3/h)

Failure to accept return process condensate can have a significant effect on the overall consumption of water. In a typical 300 MW gas turbine-fired cogeneration facility with heat recovery steam generators, the plant may export 50,000 pounds (22.7 tonnes) per hour of extraction steam. If this process condensate is not returned, the plant must treat an additional 140 gpm (32 m3/h) of water. Table 2 shows an example of the consumptive water use and waste production for 100% condensate return and 0% return. Polishing 100 gpm (23 m3/h) of condensate only uses about three gpm (0.7 m3/h), for demineralizer regeneration. Compare this to the 143 gpm (32.5 m3/h) of raw water needed to produce 100 gpm (23 m3/h) of high purity water. In areas where water is not readily available or expensive, this added consumption of raw water may affect project feasibility.

to produce cycle makeup water include multimedia filtration, reverse osmosis and/or two-bed demineralization, and mixed-bed polishing. A decision must be made whether to expand the capacity of cycle makeup equipment to handle the increased flow and ion loading associated with condensate polishing. Many plants prefer to provide separate systems to prevent the cycle makeup system from being knocked out of service as a result of severe process contamination. Condensate treatment systems are composed of various combinations of equipment. The equipment ranges from simple filters, using either woven cartridges or wedge wire screens, to powdered ion exchange resins on a precoat filter, to ion removal systems using cation exchangers operating in the sodium or morpholine cycle, to trains of cation and anion or mixed bed ion exchangers. The selection of the type of treatment equipment is determined by careful consideration of the type of contamination, the amount of contamination, and the boiler system requirements.

Partial/Full Condensate Return

Accepting some or all of the condensate for use in a high-pressure boiler system requires a comprehensive economic analysis. This analysis must consider the capital and operating and maintenance costs associated with each treatment option. The critical issues for review include ion removal equipment, thermal costs, contractual needs, waste generation, and steam purity requirements.

Equipment
Consideration of various condensate treatment options is an important first step. The capital cost of equipment, regeneration chemical costs, resin or membrane replacement costs, power costs (for RO systems), and operating labor are all important in the analysis. In most installations, the processes required 3

Figure 2: Sodium cycle condensate polishers.

Each condensate treatment process must be evaluated based on the desired operation of the plant. Table 3 is a summary of the operational aspects of typical condensate polishing systems. Outsourcing the demineralized water system offers developers new flexibility in balancing capital and O&M costs for a project. With this option, the capital cost and operational costs of ion removal equipment are compared to the convenience, reduced manpower and waste, and fixed operating cost of purchasing water. As station designers strive to minimize demineralized water use, the need for large flow ion removal equipment may decrease, opening up the possibility of leasing equipment or purchasing treated water.

a definable and usable heating value. Even if it is flashed at atmospheric conditions and returned, the heat value will be at least 150 Btu/lb (83.3 kcal/kg). Using the previous example of 50,000 lb/h (22,686 kg/h) of lost condensate and fuel costs of $3.00/MM Btu ($11.90/MM kcal), the annual replacement energy cost is approximately $200,000.

Steam Energy Agreement

The interrelationship between the plant and the steam host cannot be overlooked in the evaluation. The steam host may have process and/or governmental restrictions limiting the type and amount of chemical treatment which can be applied to its steam and/or condensate system. The impact of these restrictions may decrease the ability to protect the system against condensate corrosion. Therefore, additional treatment of the condensate would have to be performed in order to obtain the required feedwater quality. The steam sales agreement with the host plant is a financially critical document. It should permit the cogeneration plant to accept good quality condensate, but to dump poor quality condensate. The document must include a technical specification of what is good and what is unacceptable condensate. At a minimum, the agreement should include temperature requirements, conductivity limits, and process contamination limits. The document must define who will handle the dumped condensate, who will provide the raw water, and who will pay for the associated costs to replace the lost condensate.

Thermal Considerations
Modern, combined cycle cogeneration and independent power production facilities impose serious thermal restrictions on facility designers and operators. These constraints can cause significant demands for high purity water and steam during plant start-ups. Newer combustion turbines deliver a significant amount of heat to the steam generators in a very short time and are not well suited to part-load operation. In addition, it is not uncommon for these facilities to go from cold to full-load operation in about four hours. Restrictions on load or unit derating, because of poor boiler water chemistry, are very difficult to enforce because of their financial penalty. Another cost consideration in condensate return evaluations is the heating value of the condensate. It has
Table 3: Condensate Treatment Processes.
Device Sodium Zeolite Condensate Polisher Mechanism of Operation High flow rate passed over typical softener resin. Some ion exchange may occur; however, filtration is the primary mechanism.

Strong Points Easy to control, well understood by plants. Low operating costs. Easy to regenerate.

Weak Points Subject to fouling, especially by filming amines, high iron loading. Effectiveness varies. Can "bump" sodium, affecting coordinated control. High capital cost. Beads may deteriorate at high pressure drops. Condensate temperature must be less than 120F(49C). Very high capital cost. Difficult to regenerate, usually requires external regeneration. Subject to fouling. Only removes magnetic material. High capital cost.

Mixed Bed Condensate Polisher

High flow rate passed over combined cation and anion resin. Some ion exchange may occur, however, filtration is the primary mechanism. Condensate flows through a matrix; magnetic particles are extracted. Particulate is discharged as required. Filter sepia are covered by a fine filter media. Particulate in condensate accumulates on media. Particulates build up on a cartridge installed in a housing.

Yields high purity water. No sodium "bump".

Electromagnetic Filter

Effective removal of magnetic iron. Runs by itself.

Pre-Coat Filter

Relatively inexpensive. Effective when loading stays low. Surprisingly inexpensive.

Media lost when fouled. Must pre-coat after each cycle. Can get expensive with high particulate loading. Effectiveness varies during cycle. Requires filter cartridge replacement when fouled. Regarded as "low tech".

Cartridge Filter

Table 4:

Steam Turbine Manufacturers Purity Requirements.

ABB GE < 0.2 20 20 Westinghouse < 0.3 < 10 <5 <5 < 10 <2 < 20 2.3 2.7 < 0.5 10 50

Cation Conductivity, mmhos/cm (mS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen, ppb (mg/L) Sodium, ppb (mg/L) Chloride, ppb (mg/L) Silica, ppb (mg/L) Copper, ppb (mg/L) Iron, ppb (mg/L) Na : PO4 Molar Ratio Total Dissolved Solids, ppb (mg/L) max.

50

Figure 3: Steam turbine fouled with silica.

Waste Generation
Although cooling tower blowdown may be the largest waste or discharge flow from a cogeneration plant, the most concentrated waste is produced by the ion removal equipment. The flow of eject from an reverse osmosis unit is usually 1/3 the product flow, and it is fairly concentrated. Reject concentration may be 3 or 4 times the makeup water quality and include acid and antiscalants. The demineralizer waste is much more concentrated, with a conductivity of 20,000 to 30,000 mmhos/cm (mS/cm). Additional waste flows and an increased level of dissolved solids must be considered in the design evaluation and subsequent discharge permit application.

process condensate is returned directly to the boiler feedwater system (under the belief that it is pure), the boiler system performance is at risk. Even 0.5 ppm (mg/L) of silica contaminating the 50,000 lb/h (22.7 tonnes/h) of returned condensate will quickly increase boiler silica above the ASME limits that are designed to minimize vaporous silica carryover. Damage to the steam turbine may also occur if this contaminated condensate is used for desuperheating high pressure steam.

CONDENSATE TREATMENT PROCESS DESIGN Condensate Contamination

Condensate contamination must be considered when evaluating treatment options. Not all treatment equipment removes all contaminants. Specific contamination information must be obtained from the steam host, in order to understand how to properly treat the condensate stream. Care must be taken in the waste permit application to ensure that there is a provision for the regeneration waste from the demineralizer/polisher to contain contaminants and process chemicals. Table 5 lists some common types of condensate treatment equipment and their contaminant removal ability.

Steam Purity
As mentioned previously, new cogeneration plants require high purity steam. Table 4 is a summary of the steam purity requirements for three steam turbine manufacturers. Failure to adequately monitor and treat condensate systems can have a significant impact on steam purity and plant operation. If
Table 5: Condensate Polisher Application Guidelines.
Form Insoluble "Crud" Soluble Source Corrosion in condensate system Condensate corrosion, makeup contamination Cooling water inleakage, process contamination Process, coolers Process Sodium Zeolite Yes Yes

Contaminant Fe and Cu oxide Iron .or Hardness

Cellulose Precoat Yes No

Magnetic Filter Yes No

Deep Bed Mixed Bed Yes Yes

Pre-coat Polisher Yes Yes

TDS

Soluble

No

No

No

Yes (1)

Yes (1)

Oil/Organic Organic (3)

Insoluble Soluble

No (2) No

Yes No

No No

No (2) No

Yes (2) No

(1) These units are designed primarily as filters. Because of the large amount of water being treated, they will quickly exhaust if exposed to high TDS. (2) Oil and certain organics are removed by fouling the ion exchange media. Activated carbon has been used. Each potential contaminant must be tested.

CONDENSATE CONCERNS
In most cogeneration plants, condensate treatment and boiler feedwater treatment are very closely linked. They both share the same concerns for corrosion of the condensate system and minimization of contaminants in the boiler.

General Corrosion
A second area of concern in condensate systems is general corrosion. Condensate which is exposed to air, low pH conditions, or process contamination, may become corrosive. This general corrosion creates two problems: it reduces the life expectancy of the piping and equipment and it adds metallic oxides to the feedwater going to the boiler. The best first step is to design the system to prevent contact with air and minimize contamination. The next step is chemical treatment. In high-pressure cogeneration plants, neutralizing amines are used to elevate the pH of the feedwater and subsequent condensate. Neutralizing amines have the advantage of high basicity, the ability to elevate the pH of the condensate, and varying distribution ratios. Finally, material selection must be considered to reduce corrosion. The added capital cost or heat transfer penalty may be small compared to the cost of replacement. The heart of the plant is the boiler and the condensate/feedwater treatment options described above are designed to protect the boiler and associated equipment. ASME, EPRI, and other organizations have set strict guidelines for feedwater quality to help protect the boiler and steam turbine from contaminants that may jeopardize plant operation. In addition, polymeric dispersants can minimize deposition of metal oxides on high heat transfer surfaces of the generating sections of the boiler.

Oxygen Corrosion
One area of concern in the condensate system is prevention of oxygen corrosion. This is a particularly destructive form of corrosion, because it manifests itself in the form of pits, which can rapidly bore through a metal surface. The rate of oxygen corrosion is dependent on three variables: temperature, oxygen content, and metallurgy. Lowering the temperature, reducing the oxygen content, and/or using more corrosion-resistant materials reduce oxygen corrosion. Minimizing dissolved oxygen in the condensate through design or mechanical means is always an effective measure. A higher level of dissolved oxygen can occasionally be tolerated, if the temperature of the condensate is relatively low; however, when condensate is mixed with demineralized water, the resulting increase in the dissolved oxygen level may significantly increase the corrosion potential. At that point, lined piping or corrosion-resistant metallurgy should be considered. As the condensate is mixed with makeup water to become feedwater, it must have the oxygen mechanically removed in a deaerator. Then, because of the high temperature of the feedwater, the remaining dissolved oxygen must be chemically scavenged to prevent oxygen corrosion pitting. Failure to remove dissolved oxygen will subject the preboiler and boiler systems to oxygen pitting corrosion.

Figure 4: Oxygen pitting attack.

Figure 5: High pressure steam drum.

OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
From a water treatment standpoint, an operating power plant is continuously subjected to the possibility of feedwater contamination. It is critical that a plant be designed to effectively sample the streams, monitor condensate quality, and respond to system changes. As shown in Figure 6, a central sampling panel with continuous monitoring located in the water treatment laboratory, helps to provide timely response to upsets. On-line monitoring instrumentation must go beyond a simple conductivity meter and dump valve. The evaluation must take into account the type of process contamination that can be expected. Consideration should be made for a TOC analyzer, a hydrocarbon analyzer, or other instruments that will alert an operator that contamination has occurred. In addition to instrumentation, a schedule must be established for regular testing of the accuracy of the measurements and routine maintenance.

Response to condensate contamination varies from plant to plant; however, the procedures should be similar. First, condensate monitoring should be reliable and continuous. Second, when contamination is discovered, the extent of contamination must be assessed. Third, a quick decision regarding the degree of impact on the boiler operation must be made. Finally, a determination must be made as to whether the plant can produce the required makeup water and handle the subsequent waste flows. These scenarios must be carefully considered before they are needed, so that operating personnel know the proper responses when an event occurs.

CASE HISTORY #1
A new cogeneration facility was built beside an existing food processing plant in the northeast U.S.A. In order to minimize water consumption and save energy, all the returned condensate was sent to a raw water storage tank, to be mixed with raw water from a pond. This tank provided suction to the demineralizer supply pumps. The ion removal system consisted of an activated carbon filter installed ahead of a two-bed (strong acid cation/strong base anion) demineralizer, followed by a mixed bed demineralizer. This condensate return system caused several problems. The flow of process condensate and its temperature was so high that it increased the makeup water temperature to 100F to 120F (38C to 49C). Besides subjecting the mild steel piping to corrosion, it deteriorated the anion exchange resin. Type II resin degrades at operating temperatures above 85F (29C). Even a Type I resin would suffer degradation, if continuously exposed to such a high temperature. In addition, despite assurances from the host that the condensate would not be contaminated, there was significant leakage of food products into the condensate. Unfortunately, the contamination was weakly ionized and did not register on the conductivity meters, unless it was highly concentrated. This contamination quickly exhausted any organic removal capacity of the activated carbon filters and fouled the anion resin. The breakdown of organic material in the boiler system caused depression of the pH in the boiler water. This low pH caused general corrosion of the boiler. Of even more significance, the varying levels of contamination made maintaining chemistry within the recommended control box for a coordinated phosphate/pH program, almost impossible. This put the boiler at risk for acid or caustic under-deposit corrosion. 7

Figure 6: Sample analysis panel.

The equipment used for condensate monitoring varies, depending on the type and level of contamination. Cation conductivity analyzers are frequently employed to rapidly detect cooling water contamination of surface condenser condensate. By passing a sample of condensate through a column filled with cation exchange resin, any contamination is converted to its acidic form. This form is much more conductive than its corresponding ionic form, so even small leaks are detected quickly. Oil contamination of condensate is a major problem. Plants have used TLV sniffers and oil in water analyzers, and are now using fluorometers to detect low levels of oil. Turbidimeters can be used to detect insoluble forms of oil and hydrocarbons, but are also frequently employed to detect iron throw during start-up of paper machines. Even TOC analyzers can be used to detect certain types of organic contamination.

The cogeneration plant was forced to make several modifications to its water treatment systems in order to be able to produce steam reliably. First, they insisted that the food plant minimize the level of food product contamination of the condensate. Then they instituted a more rigorous monitoring of the condensate, including installation of a TOC analyzer. Within their plant, they installed a heat exchanger to reduce the temperature of the makeup to the demineralizer, while increasing the temperature of the demineralized effluent. Finally, they changed the resin to handle the higher levels of organic material expected in the makeup water.

Table 6: ASME Suggested Water Chemistry Limits.

Drum Operating Pressure, psig (MPa) FEEDWATER Dissolved Oxygen, ppm O2 Total Iron, ppm Fe Total Copper, ppm Cu Total Hardness, ppm as CaCO3 pH @ 25C Pre-boiler System Protection Chemicals, ppm Nonvolatile TOC, ppm as C Oily Matter, ppm BOILER WATER Silica, ppm Total Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 Free OH Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 Specific Conductance, S/cm STEAM PURITY Total Dissolved Solids, ppm 1501 2000 (10.35 13.79) < 0.007 0.02 0.01 ND 8.8 9.6 VAM < 0.2 < 0.2 1 NS ND 80 0.1

CASE HISTORY #2
A cogeneration facility was installed at a large refinery in the southwestern U.S.A. where attention to condensate system problems failed to identify hydrocarbon contamination in the returned condensate. After several episodes of severe contamination, the cogeneration facility decided not to accept the return condensate. The initial result of the decision was a doubling of the demand on the makeup demineralizers and subsequent doubling of the operating costs. Unfortunately, the demineralizer system was inadequately sized for the increased flow and could not keep up with the demand. The contamination problem was evident as far back as the hot process softener, which received oil-contaminated steam. The situation became so critical that the cogeneration facility was close to being declared in breach of its steam sales agreement. Significant modifications to all the plant water systems were required, just to make the plant operational. The capital cost for these modifications exceeded $3,500,000. Although the increased O&M costs are a continuing burden for the plant, they are able to meet the steam supply requirements of the host.

SUMMARY
As with most projects, the first step to improved condensate handling is good communication. Project development managers must understand the possible economic pitfalls associated with receiving condensate from a host facility. They must maintain communication among all parties to determine the options for handling condensate . A financial analysis is necessary to compare the capital equipment costs with the operating and maintenance costs for various alternatives. a comprehensive steam sales agreement must be negotiated which specifically addresses the financial impact of contamination, flow, and the thermal aspects of condensate return. Finally, the cogeneration facility must install and maintain effective monitoring equipment to be able to respond to system upsets. By following these steps, a development team will establish a financially sound method of handling condensate returns to ensure the long-term viability of a cogeneration project.

FUTURE WATER NEEDS

Higher purity water requirements for cycle makeup continue to increase. As developments to increase efficiency (with higher operating pressures and reheat), continue in cogeneration plant design, the requirements for high purity water will also increase. See Table 6 for the suggested water chemistry limits for operation under high pressure conditions. As cogeneration plants are required to produce higher purity water, they also have to operate under site-specific constraints. For example, many plants are actively engaged in waste minimization programs, which encourage return of marginal quality water to the boiler makeup treatment system. This factor and others make condensate treatment considerations even more important. 8

REFERENCES
Internal Communication, Sid Dunn, BetzDearborn, June, 1997, re: Condensate Contamination Monitors. Design, operating improvements focus on condensate polishing, Power, May 1992, edited by Sheldon Strauss. Guide to Condensate Polishing, Dow Chemical Company. BetzDearborn Handbook Conditioning, 9th edition. of Industrial Water

Consensus on Operating Practices for the Control of Feedwater and Boiler Water Chemistry in Modern Industrial Boilers, ASME.