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, chem-
ical treatment requirements, and wastewater handling
systems. Developers that fail to conduct a thorough
economic analysis can expect to have significant oper- Figure 1: Condensate pipe corrosion.
ational and maintenance problems with these systems
and suffer serious losses in project profitability and
operational reliability. Two case histories are dis- els in the condensate. These condensate handling
cussed which demonstrate the results of inadequate practices contribute to poor quality condensate, which,
assessment of return condensate quality. if not adequately addressed, can put an entire cogen-
eration project at risk.

CURRENT PRACTICES
Developers of cogeneration projects usually plan for
the thermal host to return all condensate to the cogen-
eration 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, “it’s
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 sys-
tem.
The steam host’s condensate handling practices are
normally consistent with running steam generators
operating below 900 psig (6.21 MPa). Typically, filtra-
tion and sodium cycle ion exchange are the only water
treatment processes used for the makeup water. Even
poor quality condensate is considered an improve-
ment in overall makeup quality. In most petrochemical
plants and refineries, process pressures are greater
than steam pressures, to minimize product contami-
nation. 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 tur-
bines 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 feed-
water purity requirements as pressure increases.
Because condensate return may make up a large por-
tion of the total boiler feedwater, its purity must also
increase as boiler pressure increases.

©1998, BetzDearborn Inc. All rights reserved. 1

Table 1: ASME Suggested Water Chemistry Limits.
Drum Operating Pressure, psig (MPa) 601-750 751 – 900 901 – 1000 1001 – 1500
(4.15-5.17) (5.18–6.21) (6.22 – 6.89) (6.90 – 10.34)

FEEDWATER
Dissolved Oxygen, ppm O2 < 0.007 < 0.007 < 0.007 < 0.007
Total Iron, ppm Fe ≤ 0.025 ≤ 0.02 ≤ 0.02 ≤ 0.02
Total Copper, ppm Cu ≤ 0.02 ≤ 0.015 ≤ 0.01 ≤ 0.01
Total Hardness, ppm as CaCO3 ≤ 0.2 ≤ 0.1 ≤ 0.05 ND
pH @ 25°C 8.3-10.0 8.3-10.0 8.8 – 9.6 8.8 – 9.6
Preboiler System Protection Chemicals, ppm NS NS VAM VAM
Nonvolatile TOC, ppm as C < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.2 < 0.2
Oily Matter, ppm < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.2 < 0.2
BOILER WATER
Silica, ppm SiO2 ≤ 30 ≤ 20 ≤8 ≤2
Total Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 < 200 < 150 < 100 NS
Free OH Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 NS NS NS ND
Specific Conductance, µS/cm 1500-300 1200-200 1000 – 200 ≤ 150
STEAM PURITY
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm 0.5-0.1 0.5-0.1 0.5 – 0.1 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 conden-
sate returned, both process and turbine, constitute a
large percentage of the total boiler feedwater flow.
Therefore, analysis of the quality and quantity of con-
densate 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 alterna-
tives must be communicated to the project develop-
ment team.

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The options for condensate treatment vary significant-
ly 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 con-
densate from the steam host. It is important that
developers, negotiators, and technical mangers under-
stand the financial impact of these decisions. The
return of condensate impacts many aspects of plant
operation, including consumptive use, water treat-
ment, and even waste discharge permits. A capital
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 usu-
ally make the option of not accepting the condensate
return economically unattractive.

2
Table 2: Water Use to Replace Condensate.

Stream 100% Condensate Return 0% Condensate Return

Condensate Return, gpm (m3/h) 100 (23) 0

Filter Backwash, gpm (m3/h) 0 7 (1.6)

Reverse Osmosis Reject, gpm (m3/h) 0 34 (7.8)

Demineralizer Regen waste, gpm (m3/h) 3 (0.7) 2 (0.4)

Total Waste Flow, gpm (m3/h) 3 (0.7) 43 (9.8)

Total Demin Outlet, gpm (m3/h) 100 (23) 100 (23)

Total Raw Water Consumed, gpm (m3/h) 3 (0.7) 143 (32)

Failure to accept return process condensate can have to produce cycle makeup water include multimedia fil-
a significant effect on the overall consumption of tration, reverse osmosis and/or two-bed demineraliza-
water. In a typical 300 MW gas turbine-fired cogener- tion, and mixed-bed polishing. A decision must be
ation facility with heat recovery steam generators, the made whether to expand the capacity of cycle make-
plant may export 50,000 pounds (22.7 tonnes) per up equipment to handle the increased flow and ion
hour of extraction steam. If this process condensate is
loading associated with condensate polishing. Many
not returned, the plant must treat an additional 140
plants prefer to provide separate systems to prevent
gpm (32 m3/h) of water. Table 2 shows an example of
the cycle makeup system from being knocked out of
the consumptive water use and waste production for
service as a result of severe process contamination.
100% condensate return and 0% return. Polishing
100 gpm (23 m3/h) of condensate only uses about Condensate treatment systems are composed of var-
three gpm (0.7 m3/h), for demineralizer regeneration. ious combinations of equipment. The equipment
Compare this to the 143 gpm (32.5 m3/h) of raw water
ranges from simple filters, using either woven car-
needed to produce 100 gpm (23 m3/h) of high purity
tridges or wedge wire screens, to powdered ion
water. In areas where water is not readily available or
exchange resins on a precoat filter, to ion removal sys-
expensive, this added consumption of raw water may
tems using cation exchangers operating in the sodium
affect project feasibility.
or morpholine cycle, to trains of cation and anion or
mixed bed ion exchangers. The selection of the type
Partial/Full Condensate Return
of treatment equipment is determined by careful con-
Accepting some or all of the condensate for use in a sideration of the type of contamination, the amount of
high-pressure boiler system requires a comprehen- contamination, and the boiler system requirements.
sive 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, ther-
mal 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 Figure 2: Sodium cycle condensate polishers.

3
Each condensate treatment process must be evaluat-
ed 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 dem-
ineralized water use, the need for large flow ion
removal equipment may decrease, opening up the
possibility of leasing equipment or purchasing treated
water.
Thermal Considerations
Modern, combined cycle cogeneration and indepen-
dent power production facilities impose serious ther-
mal 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 eval-
uations is the heating value of the condensate. It has
Table 3: Condensate Treatment Processes.
Mechanism
Device of Operation
Sodium Zeolite High flow rate passed over typical
Condensate Polisher softener resin. Some ion
exchange may occur; however, fil-
tration is the primary mechanism.
Mixed Bed High flow rate passed over com-
Condensate Polisher bined cation and anion resin.
Some ion exchange may occur,
however, filtration is the primary
mechanism.
Electromagnetic Filter Condensate flows through a
matrix; magnetic particles are
extracted. Particulate is dis-
charged as required.
Pre-Coat Filter Filter sepia are covered by a fine
filter media. Particulate in con-
densate accumulates on media.
Cartridge Filter Particulates build up on a car-
tridge installed in a housing.
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 replace-
ment 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 mini-
mum, the agreement should include temperature
requirements, conductivity limits, and process contam-
ination limits. The document must define who will han-
dle the dumped condensate, who will provide the raw
water, and who will pay for the associated costs to
replace the lost condensate.
Strong Points Weak Points
Easy to control, well understood Subject to fouling, especially by filming
by plants. Low operating costs. amines, high iron loading.
Easy to regenerate. Effectiveness varies. Can "bump"
sodium, affecting coordinated control.
High capital cost. Beads may deterio-
rate at high pressure drops.
Yields high purity water. No Condensate temperature must be less
sodium "bump". than 120°F(49°C). Very high capital
cost. Difficult to regenerate, usually
requires external regeneration.
Subject to fouling.
Effective removal of magnetic Only removes magnetic material. High
iron. Runs by itself. capital cost.
Relatively inexpensive. Media lost when fouled. Must pre-coat
Effective when loading stays after each cycle. Can get expensive
low. with high particulate loading.
Effectiveness varies during cycle.
Surprisingly inexpensive. Requires filter cartridge replacement
when fouled. Regarded as "low tech".
4
 Table 4: Steam Turbine Manufacturer’s Purity
Requirements.
ABB GE Westinghouse

Cation Conductivity, mmhos/cm (mS/cm) < 0.5 < 0.2 < 0.3
Dissolved Oxygen, ppb (mg/L) < 10
Sodium, ppb (mg/L) 10 20 <5
Chloride, ppb (mg/L) <5
Silica, ppb (mg/L) 50 20 < 10
Copper, ppb (mg/L) <2
Iron, ppb (mg/L) < 20
Na : PO4 Molar Ratio 2.3 – 2.7
Total Dissolved Solids, ppb (mg/L) max. 50

process condensate is returned directly to the boiler

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.
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
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 con-
densate 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 equip-
ment removes all contaminants. Specific contamina-
tion 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/pol-
isher to contain contaminants and process chemicals.
Table 5 lists some common types of condensate treat-
ment equipment and their contaminant removal ability.

Table 5: Condensate Polisher Application Guidelines.

Sodium Cellulose Magnetic Deep Bed Pre-coat
Contaminant Form Source Zeolite Precoat Filter Mixed Bed Polisher
Fe and Cu oxide Insoluble Corrosion in Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
"Crud" condensate system
Iron .or Hardness Soluble Condensate Yes No No Yes Yes
corrosion, makeup
contamination
TDS Soluble Cooling water in- No No No Yes (1) Yes (1)
leakage, process
contamination
Oil/Organic Insoluble Process, coolers No (2) Yes No No (2) Yes (2)
Organic (3) Soluble Process No No No No 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.

5
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 contami-
nants in the boiler.
Oxygen Corrosion
One area of concern in the condensate system is pre-
vention 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 corro-
sion-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 conden-
sate is mixed with demineralized water, the resulting
increase in the dissolved oxygen level may significant-
ly increase the corrosion potential. At that point, lined
piping or corrosion-resistant metallurgy should be con-
sidered. 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 remain-
ing 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.
6
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 feed-
water 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 cogener-
ation plants, neutralizing amines are used to elevate
the pH of the feedwater and subsequent condensate.
Neutralizing amines have the advantage of high basic-
ity, 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 com-
pared to the cost of replacement.
The heart of the plant is the boiler and the conden-
sate/feedwater treatment options described above are
designed to protect the boiler and associated equip-
ment. 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 sec-
tions of the boiler.
Figure 5: High pressure steam drum.
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
From a water treatment standpoint, an operating
power plant is continuously subjected to the possibili-
ty of feedwater contamination. It is critical that a plant
be designed to effectively sample the streams, moni-
tor 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 estab-
lished for regular testing of the accuracy of the mea-
surements and routine maintenance.
Figure 6: Sample analysis panel.
The equipment used for condensate monitoring
varies, depending on the type and level of contamina-
tion. Cation conductivity analyzers are frequently
employed to rapidly detect cooling water contamina-
tion 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 fluorom-
eters to detect low levels of oil. Turbidimeters can be
used to detect insoluble forms of oil and hydrocar-
bons, 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.
7
Response to condensate contamination varies from
plant to plant; however, the procedures should be sim-
ilar. First, condensate monitoring should be reliable
and continuous. Second, when contamination is dis-
covered, 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 exist-
ing food processing plant in the northeast U.S.A. In
order to minimize water consumption and save ener-
gy, 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 prob-
lems. The flow of process condensate and its temper-
ature was so high that it increased the makeup water
temperature to 100°F to 120°F (38°C to 49°C).
Besides subjecting the mild steel piping to corrosion, it
deteriorated the anion exchange resin. Type II resin
degrades at operating temperatures above 85°F
(29°C). 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 conden-
sate. 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.
The cogeneration plant was forced to make several Table 6: ASME Suggested Water Chemistry Limits.
modifications to its water treatment systems in order to Drum Operating Pressure, psig (MPa) 1501 – 2000
be able to produce steam reliably. First, they insisted (10.35 – 13.79)
that the food plant minimize the level of food product FEEDWATER
contamination of the condensate. Then they instituted Dissolved Oxygen, ppm O2 < 0.007
a more rigorous monitoring of the condensate, includ- Total Iron, ppm Fe ≤ 0.02
ing installation of a TOC analyzer. Within their plant, Total Copper, ppm Cu ≤ 0.01
they installed a heat exchanger to reduce the temper- Total Hardness, ppm as CaCO3 ND
pH @ 25°C 8.8 – 9.6
ature of the makeup to the demineralizer, while
Pre-boiler System Protection Chemicals, ppm VAM
increasing the temperature of the demineralized efflu-
Nonvolatile TOC, ppm as C < 0.2
ent. Finally, they changed the resin to handle the high-
Oily Matter, ppm < 0.2
er levels of organic material expected in the makeup
BOILER WATER
water. Silica, ppm ≤1
Total Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 NS
CASE HISTORY #2 Free OH Alkalinity, ppm as CaCO3 ND
Specific Conductance, µS/cm ≤ 80
A cogeneration facility was installed at a large refinery
STEAM PURITY
in the southwestern U.S.A. where attention to conden-
Total Dissolved Solids, ppm 0.1
sate system problems failed to identify hydrocarbon
contamination in the returned condensate. After sev-
eral episodes of severe contamination, the cogenera- SUMMARY
tion facility decided not to accept the return conden-
sate. The initial result of the decision was a doubling As with most projects, the first step to improved con-
of the demand on the makeup demineralizers and sub- densate handling is good communication. Project
sequent doubling of the operating costs. Unfortunately, development managers must understand the possible
the demineralizer system was inadequately sized for economic pitfalls associated with receiving conden-
the increased flow and could not keep up with the sate from a host facility. They must maintain commu-
demand. The contamination problem was evident as nication among all parties to determine the options for
far back as the hot process softener, which received handling condensate . A financial analysis is neces-
oil-contaminated steam. The situation became so crit- sary to compare the capital equipment costs with the
ical that the cogeneration facility was close to being operating and maintenance costs for various alterna-
declared in breach of its steam sales agreement. tives. a comprehensive steam sales agreement must
be negotiated which specifically addresses the finan-
Significant modifications to all the plant water systems cial impact of contamination, flow, and the thermal
were required, just to make the plant operational. The aspects of condensate return. Finally, the cogenera-
capital cost for these modifications exceeded tion facility must install and maintain effective monitor-
$3,500,000. Although the increased O&M costs are a ing equipment to be able to respond to system upsets.
continuing burden for the plant, they are able to meet By following these steps, a development team will
the steam supply requirements of the host. establish a financially sound method of handling con-
densate returns to ensure the long-term viability of a
FUTURE WATER NEEDS cogeneration project.

Higher purity water requirements for cycle makeup REFERENCES

continue to increase. As developments to increase Internal Communication, Sid Dunn, BetzDearborn,
efficiency (with higher operating pressures and June, 1997, re: Condensate Contamination Monitors.
reheat), continue in cogeneration plant design, the
requirements for high purity water will also increase. “Design, operating improvements focus on conden-
See Table 6 for the suggested water chemistry limits sate polishing, Power, May 1992, edited by Sheldon
for operation under high pressure conditions. Strauss.
As cogeneration plants are required to produce higher “Guide to Condensate Polishing”, Dow Chemical
purity water, they also have to operate under site-spe- Company.
cific constraints. For example, many plants are active-
BetzDearborn Handbook of Industrial Water
ly engaged in waste minimization programs, which
Conditioning, 9th edition.
encourage return of marginal quality water to the boil-
er makeup treatment system. This factor and others Consensus on Operating Practices for the Control of
make condensate treatment considerations even more Feedwater and Boiler Water Chemistry in Modern
important. Industrial Boilers, ASME.