Condensate Polishing Guidelines

E
Electric Power
Research Institute
Keywords:
Power plant availability
Water chemistry
Condensate polishing
Corrosion protection
EPRI TR-104422
2712-10, 2977,
9003
Final Report
September 1996
Condensate Polishing Guidelines
Prepared by
BLACK & VEATCH, Kansas City, Missouri
LICENSED
M AT E R I A L
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
(EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL. THIS AGREEMENT
CONTINUES ON THE BACK COVER.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED REPORT YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT
AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED REPORT TO EPRI AND THE
PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this
report only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization. This means that the following may use
this report: (I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other
related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered into
a contract agreeing not to disclose the report outside of its organization or to use the report for its own
benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement
between most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master
Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
This report, including the information contained in it, is owned by EPRI and is protected by United States
and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce,
translate or modify this report, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on
this report.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this report to any person or organization, or use the
information contained in this report, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as
specified above unless such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI. You agree to take all
reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this report. Except as specified above, this
agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or
any other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this report.
(continued on back cover)
Condensate Polishing Guidelines
TR-104422
Research Projects 2712-10, 2977, and 9003
Final Report, June 1996
Prepared by
B.A. Larkin (Black and Veatch)
D.C. Gay (Black and Veatch)
L.C. Webb (Black and Veatch)
F. Pocock (EPRI Consultant)
M. Sadler (EPRI Consultant)
S.G. Sawochka (NWT Corporation)
D. Siegwarth (NWT Corporation)
L. Wirth (Consultant)
G. Crits (Consultant)
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in
Project Managed by accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section
Black and Veatch 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication,
8400 Ward Parkway this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license
agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and
Kansas City, Missouri 64114 any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the document prior to
publication.
Authors
L.C. Webb
B.A. Larkin
Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
EPRI Project Manager

R.B. Dooley
Applied Science and Technology, Strategic Research and
Development
for
Fossil Power Plants, Generation Group
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED
OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF
EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE
USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT,
INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT
INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
ORDERING INFORMATION
Price: ($Report Price)
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins
Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (510) 934-4212. There is no charge for reports
requested by EPRI member utilities.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 1995 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
Guidelines are presented for condensate polishing in United States utility generating
units, for both nuclear and fossil plants. A portion of these guidelines was published
earlier as TR-101942 which was issued as an EPRI Nuclear Group Guideline. This
portion is included in these guidelines along with new materials to more generalize the
guidelines and to include economics of condensate polishing. The TR-101942 material
has been edited somewhat, primarily for document format purposes, but the technical
content remains the same.
Properly designed and operated condensate polishing systems can provide the best
possible quality of feedwater to steam generators. High quality feedwater is important
to long-term, reliable operation. This document describes fundamentals of ion
exchange, the application of ion exchange to feedwater treatment, and equipment used
in condensate polishing. Operating and maintenance guidelines and information on the
economics of condensate polishing are also presented as well as methodology to
evaluate condensate polishing for the individual utility circumstances.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the following members of the EPRI Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry
Group for their review comments on the draft guidelines:
Al Aschoff Malcom Ball

Consultant Consultant
Greg Bartley Jim Bellows

Tennessee Valley Authority Westinghouse Power Corporation
Albert Bursik Frances Cutler

Consultant Southern California Edison
Phil Daniel Larry Dupree

B&W Carolina Power & Light
Dan Everson Tom Gilchrist

Wisconsin Power & Light Co. Tri-State G&T
Don Goldstrom Doug Hubbard

Salt River Project American Electric Power
Bud Herre Ronnie Jones

Pennsylvania Power & Light TU Electric
Otkar Jonas Ronnie Pate

Jonas, Inc. Georgia Power Co.
Jim Mathews Kevin Shields

Duke Power Co. Shepperd T. Powell Associates
Rob Peterson Terry Spaulding

Salt River Project PSI Energy
Jim Rice Steve Shulder

Consultant Baltimore Gas & Electric
v
Dave Stamp George Verib

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. Ohio Edison
The authors wish to thank those who facilitated plant visits including: Mr. S. Ronnie
Pate at Georgia Power Company, Mr. Carl Scheerer of Central Illinois Power Company,
Mr. Mike Waddlington formerly of TU Electric Company, Ms. Francis Cutler of
Southern California Edison, and Mr. Vernon James of Public Service Company of
Oklahoma. We also wish to thank all of those at the individual stations for providing
supporting information during our visits. The authors also wish to thank those
members of the EEI chemistry subcommittees and the EPRI International Cycle
Chemistry Group who provided survey input to these guidelines.
The authors wish to thank those members of the Condensate Polishing Guidelines
Committee, who participated in the development of TR-101942, Condensate Polishing
Guidelines for PWR and BWR Plants. The authors also wish to acknowledge the
participation of T. O. Passell, who was a project manager for the nuclear guideline as
well as a participant in initiating this guideline and to Mr. Peter Millett who
subsequently took over for the Nuclear Power Group.
We also wish to thank Mr. David Shallberg of Black & Veatch for his work in
developing the many economic calculations used in these guidelines.
vi
SUMMARY
These condensate polishing guidelines have been developed to provide guidance for US
utilities for the installation, operation, and management of condensate polishing
systems. These guidelines are applicable to both nuclear and fossil units. Condensate
polishing can be an important tool in the maintenance of high purity feedwater, which
is so important for long reliable life of steam cycle components.
These guidelines are based upon scientific principles and 30 years of experience with
condensate polishing. These guidelines include material which was published earlier as
TR-101942, which was issued as an EPRI Nuclear Group Guideline. This material is
included in these guidelines along with new materials to broaden the applicability of
the guidelines and to include economics of condensate polishing. The TR-101942
material has been edited somewhat, primarily for document format purposes, but the
technical content remains the same.
Purpose and Scope
These guidelines provide scientific basis for condensate polishing and its applications in
power plants. The guidelines give the novice the background information to
understand the basis of polishing. The more common methods of application are also
explained so that the impacts of equipment design on performance can be understood.
The economics of polishing are developed using actual applications as input. Real
applications were used because of the myriad of factors that need to be defined to
evaluate the economics of condensate polishing. Guidelines were developed which are
applicable to both new and existing plants. Methodology is provided (a road map) for
evaluation of condensate polishing for individual circumstances.
How To Use These Guidelines
These guidelines allow the user the greatest level of flexibility possible and apply to the
widest variety of plant situations. There is flexibility in the effective use of these
guidelines. Users with little experience in condensate polishing can find valuable
information in Chapter 1 about the fundamentals of condensate polishing. Users
considering the addition of condensate polishing to existing or new units can make use
of the economic evaluation information in Chapter 3 and the road map information in
Chapter 4. Those looking for water quality impacts of condensate polishing or
alternative condensate polishing systems can look at Chapter 2.
vii
Outline
The contents of each chapter are briefly described below.
Chapter 1--Principles of Condensate Polishing
Chapter 1 describes the basics of condensate polishing, including the ion exchange
reaction, important properties of ion exchange resin, and the application of ion
exchange process to treat condensate. Much of this information was taken from the
Nuclear Group Guideline, TR-101942. The impact of feedwater treatment chemicals is
described. Several of the more common methods of regeneration and the basics of the
equipment involved are introduced. The use of powdered resins and the application
equipment are discussed.
Chapter 2--Water Chemistry Impacts
This chapter outlines the water chemistry requirements for several types of nuclear and
fossil units, as well as some of the impacts of various applicable cycle chemistry options.
Effluent quality of alternative condensate polishing systems are also addressed in this
Chapter.
Chapter 3--Justification of Condensate Polishing
This chapter discusses the economic justification of condensate polishing systems and is
generally based upon fossil plant information. The costs of polishing are evaluated
using real plant economic factors. The capital and operating cost impacts are evaluated.
Cost savings from the use of condensate polishing are also evaluated. Cost sensitivity
analyses are evaluated to show the effects of variation of important parameters such as
availability improvements, replacement power costs, the annual number of startups,
and turbine efficiency improvements.
Chapter 4--Condensate Polisher Guidelines
This chapter provides the compilation of guidance on design, operation, maintenance,

resins, and management of condensate polishing systems. This information is applicable
for both fossil and nuclear plants and information from the Nuclear Guideline, TR-
101942 was included in this section. Where guidelines are applicable to all types of
plants, they are provided in generic fashion. Where specific situations dictate departure
from generic guidelines, such guidance is provided and the reason for the departure
indicated. A road map section is presented to give the utility guidance in evaluating the
economic merits of condensate polishing for its particular installation and
circumstances.
viii
Appendix A--Condensate Polishing Experience Summary
This appendix is a summary of the input received from utilities surveyed and visited.
Most input was from fossil plants, but these were limited input from nuclear units.
Appendix B--European Practices
This appendix gives insight into the condensate polishing practices of European plants.
Appendix C--Economic Factors
This appendix gives the detailed economic factors used in the example economic
evaluations.
Appendix D--Resin Information
This appendix outlines resin analyses and procedures recommended for the evaluation
and maintenance of resin in condensate polishing systems. This information was taken
extensively from the Nuclear Guideline, TR-101942. The information includes: resin
analyses methods, regenerant specifications, and resin purchase specifications.
Appendix E--Contractor Regeneration
This appendix provides some insight to application of offsite, Contractor regeneration

of condensate polisher resins and economic comparisons of this fairly new alternative.
ix
CONTENTS
1 PRINCIPLES OF CONDENSATE POLISHING ........................................................ 1-1

Basics ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
Resin ........................................................................................................................ 1-4
Physical Characteristics ......................................................................................1-4
Resin Properties ..................................................................................................1-6
Deep Bed Resin Regeneration............................................................................... 1-16
Cation Resin Regeneration ................................................................................. 1-17
Anion Resin Regeneration .................................................................................. 1-20
Resin Ratio.......................................................................................................... 1-21
Polisher Vessel Design........................................................................................... 1-23
Mixed Bed Service Vessels................................................................................. 1-23
Polisher Operation.................................................................................................. 1-31
Recycle ............................................................................................................... 1-31
Service Cycle Termination .................................................................................. 1-32
Flow Transients and Outages ............................................................................. 1-33
Regeneration .......................................................................................................... 1-33
Resin Transfers................................................................................................... 1-34
Resin Cleaning.................................................................................................... 1-34
Mixed Bed Separation......................................................................................... 1-36
Resin Transfer from Separation Vessel .............................................................. 1-39
Resin Regeneration..............................................................................................1-39
Resin Mixing and Final Rinse ...............................................................................1-46
Resin Transfer to Service Vessel .........................................................................1-46
Typical Resin Regeneration System....................................................................... 1-47
Cation Regeneration Separation vessel.............................................................. 1-47
Anion Vessel ....................................................................................................... 1-51
Mix and Storage Vessel ...................................................................................... 1-51
Special Resin Regeneration Systems .................................................................... 1-51
xi
High Efficiency Separation Plants ....................................................................... 1-51

Post Regeneration Resin Purification Technologies ........................................... 1-58
Inert Resin........................................................................................................... 1-61
Uniform Particle Resins....................................................................................... 1-62
Contractor Regeneration..................................................................................... 1-63
Regenerant Reuse .............................................................................................. 1-63
BWR Throwaway Resin ...................................................................................... 1-63
Cross-contamination............................................................................................... 1-63
Powdered Resin Filter Demineralizers ................................................................... 1-64
Filter Demineralizer System Design .................................................................... 1-64
Powdered Resin Filter Demineralizer Operation ................................................. 1-73
References ............................................................................................................. 1-82
2 WATER CHEMISTRY IMPACTS .............................................................................. 2-1

Overview................................................................................................................... 2-1
Fossil Stations .......................................................................................................... 2-1
Nuclear Stations ....................................................................................................... 2-2
PWR Recirculating Steam Generators.................................................................. 2-5
PWR Once-Through Steam Generators ............................................................... 2-7
Justification for Condensate Polishing in PWRs ................................................... 2-9
Boiling Water Reactors ....................................................................................... 2-10
Justification for BWR Condensate Polishing ....................................................... 2-12
Condensate Polishing Effluent Targets .................................................................. 2-13
Cycle Chemistry Effects ......................................................................................... 2-15
Benefits ............................................................................................................... 2-15
Problems ............................................................................................................. 2-17
System Effluent Quality....................................................................................... 2-19
References ............................................................................................................. 2-23
3 JUSTIFICATION OF CONDENSATE POLISHING .................................................. 3-1

Condensate Polisher System Installed Costs........................................................... 3-1
Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polisher Installed with a New Power Plant ...... 3-1
Power Plant Features............................................................................................ 3-3
Condensate Polishing System Features ............................................................... 3-3
Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polisher Installed with a New Power Plant3-5
Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polisher Installed as a Retrofit......................... 3-7
xii
Power Plant Features............................................................................................ 3-9

Condensate Polishing System Features ............................................................... 3-9
Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polisher Installed as a Retrofit ............. 3-11
Condensate Polishing System Operating Costs..................................................... 3-13
Operating Costs for a Mixed Bed Polisher Installed in a New Plant.................... 3-13
Operating Costs for a Powdered Resin Polisher Installed in a New Plant .......... 3-15
Operating Costs for a Retrofit Mixed Bed Polisher.............................................. 3-17
Operating Costs for a Retrofit Powdered Resin Polisher .................................... 3-18
Benefit of Condensate Polishing ............................................................................ 3-19
Boiler Blowdown.................................................................................................. 3-21
Chemical Cleaning Frequency ............................................................................ 3-21
Startup Time........................................................................................................ 3-22
Improved Unit Availability.................................................................................... 3-22
Improved Turbine Efficiency................................................................................ 3-22
Condenser Tube Leakage................................................................................... 3-23
Boiler Tube Failures ............................................................................................ 3-23
Lower Fuel Costs ................................................................................................ 3-23
Condensate Polishing Economic Justification--Cost Versus Benefit ...................... 3-23
Cost Sensitivity to Availability and Replacement Power Cost ............................. 3-25
Sensitivity to Number of Starts per Year and Replacement Power Cost ............ 3-25
Improved Turbine Efficiency................................................................................ 3-34
Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 3-34
References ............................................................................................................. 3-34
4 CONDENSATE POLISHER GUIDELINES ............................................................... 4-1

Rationale for Guidelines ........................................................................................... 4-1
Design Guidelines ................................................................................................. 4-1
Direct Polishing ..................................................................................................... 4-2
Mixed Bed Polishing ................................................................................................. 4-3
Vessel Sizing......................................................................................................... 4-3
Vessel Design ....................................................................................................... 4-4
Vessel Design Features ........................................................................................ 4-5
Regeneration Vessels ........................................................................................... 4-7
Powdered Resin Polishing...................................................................................... 4-15
Vessel Sizing....................................................................................................... 4-15
Backwash Systems ............................................................................................. 4-16
xiii
Precoat Systems ................................................................................................. 4-17

Valves ................................................................................................................. 4-17
Piping .................................................................................................................. 4-17
Resin Strainers.................................................................................................... 4-17
Operating Guidelines.............................................................................................. 4-18
Mixed Bed ........................................................................................................... 4-18
Mixed Bed Regeneration Systems...................................................................... 4-20
Regeneration System Operations ....................................................................... 4-24
Resin Cleaning.................................................................................................... 4-29
Powdered Resin.................................................................................................. 4-31
Resin Guidelines .................................................................................................... 4-34
Management Guidelines......................................................................................... 4-36
Wastewater Disposal.............................................................................................. 4-36
Road Map for Condensate Polisher Justification.................................................... 4-38
References ............................................................................................................. 4-46
A CONDENSATE POLISHING EXPERIENCE........................................................... A-1

Condensate Polishing Advantages/Justifications .....................................................A-1
Mixed Bed Versus Powdered Resin .........................................................................A-2
Mixed Bed Advantages.............................................................................................A-3
Powdered Resin Advantages ...................................................................................A-3
Equipment Sizing Criteria .........................................................................................A-4
Equipment Sizing Criteria .........................................................................................A-5
Mixed Bed Service Vessels...................................................................................A-5
Regeneration Vessels, Typical, Three Tank System ............................................A-5
Equipment Design Features .....................................................................................A-6
Bypass Valves.......................................................................................................A-6
Spare Vessels .......................................................................................................A-6
Sight Glasses ........................................................................................................A-7
Mixed Bed Systems ..............................................................................................A-7
Effluent Strainers...................................................................................................A-7
Control Systems....................................................................................................A-7
Powdered Resin System Septa ............................................................................A-8
Miscellaneous Observations .................................................................................A-8
Operation of Condensate Polishing Service Vessels ...............................................A-9
Mixed Bed Units ....................................................................................................A-9
xiv
Powdered Resin..................................................................................................A-11
Operation of Regeneration Facilities...................................................................A-12
Bead Resins........................................................................................................A-14
Condensate Polisher Problems...........................................................................A-18
Bead Resin Systems...........................................................................................A-21
Powered Resin Systems .....................................................................................A-22
Improvements .....................................................................................................A-22
Wastewater Disposal and Miscellaneous Issues ................................................A-24
In-Place Regeneration ........................................................................................A-24
B EUROPEAN PRACTICES....................................................................................... B-1

United Kingdom ........................................................................................................B-1
Ireland ......................................................................................................................B-2
Germany...................................................................................................................B-2
Other European Countries........................................................................................B-3
In-Place Regeneration..............................................................................................B-3
References ...............................................................................................................B-4
C ECONOMIC FACTORS........................................................................................... C-1
D RESIN INFORMATION ........................................................................................... D-1

Method A--Perfect Bead Content ............................................................................ D-1
Applications.......................................................................................................... D-1
Principle ............................................................................................................... D-1
Procedure ............................................................................................................ D-1
Calculations.......................................................................................................... D-2
Method B--Exchange Capacity of Hydroxide Form Anion Resin ............................. D-2
Application ........................................................................................................... D-2
Reference ............................................................................................................ D-2
Principle ............................................................................................................... D-2
Method C--Trace Metals Determination................................................................... D-3
Application ........................................................................................................... D-3
Principle ............................................................................................................... D-3
Reagents.............................................................................................................. D-4
Sample Preparation ............................................................................................. D-4
Reagent Blanks.................................................................................................... D-5
xv
Procedure ............................................................................................................ D-5

Method D--Cation Resin Organic Extractables........................................................ D-5
Application ........................................................................................................... D-5
Principle ............................................................................................................... D-5
Procedure ............................................................................................................ D-5
Calculations.......................................................................................................... D-6
Method E--Anion Resin Exchange Kinetics Assessment ........................................ D-6
Application ........................................................................................................... D-6
References........................................................................................................... D-6
Principle ............................................................................................................... D-6
Procedure ............................................................................................................ D-6
Calculations.......................................................................................................... D-8
Method F--Resin Cross-Contamination ................................................................. D-11
Reference .......................................................................................................... D-11
Cation Resin in Bulk Anion Exchanger .............................................................. D-11
Anion Resin in Bulk Cation Resin ...................................................................... D-11
Method G--Determination of Chloride, Sulfate and Sodium Impurities Exchanged on
Bead Resin ............................................................................................................ D-12
Summary............................................................................................................ D-12
Reference .......................................................................................................... D-12
Procedure .......................................................................................................... D-12
Calculations........................................................................................................ D-12
Sodium Content of Cation Resin ........................................................................... D-13
Summary............................................................................................................ D-13
Reference .......................................................................................................... D-13
Procedure .......................................................................................................... D-13
Calculations........................................................................................................ D-13
Method H--Hydrogen Form Cation Resin Exchange Capacity .............................. D-14
Application ......................................................................................................... D-14
Reference .......................................................................................................... D-14
Principle ............................................................................................................. D-14
Procedure .......................................................................................................... D-14
Calculations........................................................................................................ D-14
Method I--Hydrogen Form Cation Resin Water Retention ..................................... D-15
Application ......................................................................................................... D-15
Reference .......................................................................................................... D-15
xvi
Principle ............................................................................................................. D-15

Procedure .......................................................................................................... D-15
Method J--Water Leachable Impurities in Powdered Resin Fiber Filter Aid ApplicationD-15
Principle ............................................................................................................. D-15
Calculations........................................................................................................ D-16
Resin Purchase Specifications........................................................................... D-16
Bead Resin ........................................................................................................ D-17
Powdered Resin................................................................................................. D-18
E CONTRACTOR REGENERATION...........................................................................E-1
Overview...................................................................................................................E-1
Process.....................................................................................................................E-1
Economic Evaluation ................................................................................................E-2
Disadvantages..........................................................................................................E-4
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Data Relating To US Standard Screen Scale....................................................... 1-6
Table 1-2 Cation Resin Sodium Selectivities at Low Sodium Concentration............... 1-15
Table 1-3 Ion Exchange Resin Capacities........................................................................... 1-16
Table 1-4 Degree of Regeneration to Achieve Sodium and Chloride Leakages of 0.3
ppb with Ammonia as a pH Control Additive........................................................... 1-40
Table 2-1 Cycle Chemistry Limits......................................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2 Once-Through Unit Cycle Chemistry Limits..................................................... 2-4
Table 2-3 Maximum Allowable Impurity Level in Recirculating Steam Generator

Polished Condensate Calculated from EPRI Action Level 1 Blowdown Chemistry
Guidelines .......................................................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-4 Maximum Polished Condensate Impurity Levels in OTSG PWRs Based on
EPRI Guidelines ................................................................................................................ 2-8
Table 2-5 Maximum Impurity Levels in BWR Polished Condensate Based on EPRI
Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 2-11
Table 2-6 Condensate Polisher Effluent Limitations--Comparison Tables................... 2-14
Table 3-1 Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed With a New
Power Plant (440 MWe).................................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-2 Total Installed Cost of Alternate Service Vessel Configurations .................... 3-5
Table 3-3 Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polishing System Installed With a
New Power Plant (440 MWe) .......................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-4 Total Installed Cost of Alternative Powdered Resin Equipment.................... 3-7
xix
Table 3-5 Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed as a Retrofit (360
MWe) .................................................................................................................................. 3-7
Table 3-6 Total Installed Cost of Alternative Service Vessel Configurations............... 3-11
Table 3-7 Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polishing System Installed as a

Retrofit (360 MWe).......................................................................................................... 3-12
Table 3-8 Total Installed Cost of Alternate Powdered Resin Equipment ..................... 3-13
Table 3-9 First Year of Cost of Operation for a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing
System Installed with a New Plant (440 MWe) .......................................................... 3-14
Table 3-10 First Year Cost of Operation for a Powdered Resin Condensate Polishing
System Installed with a New Plant (440 MWe) .......................................................... 3-16
Table 3-11 First Year Cost of Operation for a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System
Installed as a Retrofit (360 MWe).................................................................................. 3-17
Table 3-12 First Year Cost of Operation for a Powdered Resin Condensate Polishing
System Installed as a Retrofit (360 MWe).................................................................... 3-18
Table 3-13 First Year Benefits for a Condensate Polishing System Installed with a New
Plant (440 MWe) .............................................................................................................. 3-20
Table 3-14 First Year Benefits for a Condensate Polishing System Installed as a Retrofit
(360 MWe) ........................................................................................................................ 3-20
Table 3-15 Major Fixed Assumptions................................................................................. 3-24
Table 4-1 Ion Exchange Resin Regeneration ..................................................................... 4-28
Table 4-2 Typical Powdered Resin Precoat Materialsa .................................................... 4-32
Table 4-3 Demineralizer Mixed Bed Resin Ratio Guidelinesa......................................... 4-35
xx
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Typical Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System........................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2 Typical Powdered Resin Polishing System ....................................................... 1-3
Figure 1-3 Typical Structure of Hydrated Gel Type Cation Resin.................................... 1-5
Figure 1-4 Typical Cycle Location for Condensate Polishing Systems ............................ 1-8
Figure 1-5 Filter Demineralizer Differential Pressure Behavior (Source: Reference 10)1-11
Figure 1-6 Effect of Selectivity on Ion Movement Through Ion Exchange Beds .......... 1-13
Figure 1-7 Cation Resin Regeneration with Sulfuric Acid (Source: Reference 19)....... 1-18
Figure 1-8 Elution of Sodium From Cation Resin (Source: Reference 15) ..................... 1-19
Figure 1-9 Elution of Sodium and Ammonium Ions from *% DVB Cation Resin (Source:
Reference 20).................................................................................................................... 1-20
Figure 1-10 Regeneration of Type I Chloride from Anion Resin with Sodium Hydroxide
(Source: Reference 22)..................................................................................................... 1-22
Figure 1-11 Typical Spherical Condensate Polisher Vessel with Parallel Lateral
Underdrain....................................................................................................................... 1-24
Figure 1-12 Typical Spherical Polisher Vessel with Convex Support Plate .................. 1-25
Figure 1-13 Typical Spherical Polisher Vessel with Wedge Wire Screen Underdrain 1-26
Figure 1-14 Typical Cylindrical Polisher Vessel with Drop Leg Underdrain ............... 1-27
Figure 1-15 Typical Cylindrical Polisher Vessel with Parallel Lateral Underdrain ..... 1-28
Figure 1-16 Adverse Effects of Fluidizing Resin ............................................................... 1-30
Figure 1-17 Condensate Polisher Recycle........................................................................... 1-32
xxi
Figure 1-18 Ultrasonic Resin Cleaner (Source: Reference 27).......................................... 1-36
Figure 1-19 Example of Condensate Polisher Resin Bed Expansion as a Function of

Backwash Temperature and Flow Rate (Source: Reference 29) ............................... 1-38
Figure 1-20 Condensate Polisher Operating Time to Amine Breakthrough (Source:

Reference 20).................................................................................................................... 1-41
Figure 1-21 Sodium Leakage for Cation Resin (Source: Reference 31) .......................... 1-43
Figure 1-22 Chloride Leakage for Anion Resin (Source: Reference 31) ......................... 1-44
Figure 1-23 Effect of Storage on Mixed Bed Sulfate Release (Source: Reference 18) ... 1-45
Figure 1-24 Conventional Regeneration Procedure.......................................................... 1-48
Figure 1-25 Interface Isolation Regeneration System ....................................................... 1-53
Figure 1-26 Bottom Transfer Regeneration System .......................................................... 1-54
Figure 1-27 Resin Cleaning, Sizing, and Separation System ........................................... 1-56
Figure 1-28 Ammonium Sulfate Density Separation System .......................................... 1-57
Figure 1-29 Caustic Flotation Regeneration Process......................................................... 1-58
Figure 1-30 Ammonia Wash Regeneration Procedure ..................................................... 1-60
Figure 1-31 Regeneration with Inert Resin......................................................................... 1-62
Figure 1-32 Top Tubesheet Polisher Vessel (Source: Reference 41)................................ 1-65
Figure 1-33 Bottom Tubesheet Polisher Vessel (Source: Reference 41).......................... 1-67
Figure 1-34 Bottom Tubesheet Vessel Flow Distribution (Source: Reference 47)......... 1-68
Figure 1-35 Closed Loop Precoat System ........................................................................... 1-70
Figure 1-36 Open-Loop Recirculation with Eductor Precoat System............................. 1-71
Figure 1-37 Condensate Filter Demineralizer Body Feed System .................................. 1-73
Figure 1-38 Equilibrium Sodium Leakage from Ammonium and Hydrogen from Cation
Resin.................................................................................................................................. 1-75
xxii
Figure 1-39 Precoat Chloride Removal Efficiency (Source: Reference 40)..................... 1-76
Figure 1-40 Precoat Sodium Removal Efficiency (Source: Reference 40) ...................... 1-77
Figure 1-41 Hydrogen Form Precoat Sodium Removal Efficiency................................. 1-79
Figure 3-1 Sensitivity to Availability and Replacement Power Cost: New Plant Mixed
Beds ................................................................................................................................... 3-26
Bed--Ammonia Cycle ..................................................................................................... 3-27
Figure 3-3 Sensitivity to Availability and Replacement Power Cost: Powdered Resin
Condensate Polisher for a New Plant .......................................................................... 3-28
Figure 3-4 Sensitivity to Availability and Replacement Power Cost: Retrofit Plant
Mixed Beds....................................................................................................................... 3-29
Mixed Bed--Ammonia Cycle ......................................................................................... 3-30
Condensate Polisher for a Retrofit Plant ..................................................................... 3-31
Figure 3-7 Sensitivity to Number of Startups: New Plant Condensate Polisher .......... 3-32
Figure 3-8 Sensitivity to Number of Startups: Retrofit Plant Condensate Polisher ..... 3-33
Figure 3-9 Sensitivity to Reduced Turbine Efficiency Losses: New Plant Condensate
Polisher ............................................................................................................................. 3-35
Figure 3-10 Sensitivity to Reduced Turbine Efficiency Losses: Retrofit Plant Condensate
Polisher ............................................................................................................................. 3-36
Figure 4-1 Typical Booster Loop Polishing Diagram.......................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-2 Regenerant Reuse Diagram ............................................................................... 4-10
Figure 4-3 Anion Exchanger Resin Kinetics--New Resin (Source: Reference 9)........... 4-13
Figure 4-4 Anion Exchange Resin Kinetics--Used Resin (Source: Reference 9)............ 4-14
Figure 4-5 Equilibrium Sodium Capacity as a Function of pH ....................................... 4-24
xxiii
Figure 4-6 In-Bed Sodium Concentrations Profile (Source: Reference 10) .................... 4-25
Figure 4-7 Roadmap for Condensate Polisher Justification............................................. 4-40
xxiv
1
PRINCIPLES OF CONDENSATE POLISHING
Both fossil and nuclear plants make great demands on the purity of the water used for
steam generation. Condensate polishing improves the quality of feedwater by using ion
exchange to remove soluble species and filtration to remove insoluble species.
Basics
Condensate polishing uses ion exchange processes to treat cycle condensate being
returned to the boiler as feedwater. Ion exchange resin temperature limitations require
the treatment system to be located in the lower temperature areas of the cycle.
Condensate polishing is accomplished by treating condensate with ion exchange resin.

In the United States, polishing is generally accomplished by using either mixed bed or
powdered resin systems. Outside the United States more extensive treatment is used
with a wider variety of processes, including cartridge filtration, single resin polishing,
cation bed prefilters, and combination systems. In Europe, filtration is often applied
ahead of mixed bed units, and there has recently been some increased in and use of
filtration in United States plants.
Mixed bed systems normally use a mixture of bead type strong acid cation resin and
strong base anion resin. The resin is contained in service vessels which treat the
3
condensate at a relatively high specific flow rate (high rate per ft (l/s) of resin) as the
higher rates improve filtration and reduce the number of vessels and the amount of
resin required. Normally, several vessels are used in parallel. When exhausted, the resin
is generally transferred to external regeneration vessels for cleaning and regeneration.
Usually a spare charge of resin is stored in one of the regeneration vessels. A schematic
of a typical mixed bed condensate polishing system is shown on Figure 1-1.
Powdered resin polishing uses finely ground ion exchange resins as precoat material.
The precoat material is deposited in a thin layer upon septa, which are contained in a
service vessel. The condensate is passed through the precoat for both filtration and ion
exchange. Once the precoat is exhausted of ion exchange or filtration capacity, the
precoat is removed from the septa by backwashing. The spent powdered resin precoat
is then discarded. Figure 1-2 schematically shows a typical powdered resin condensate
polishing system.
1-1
Principles of Condensate Polishing
Figure 1-1 Typical Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System
1-2
Figure 1-2 Typical Powdered Resin Polishing System
Condensate polishing requires properly designed equipment, properly selected resin,

well trained operators, and a comprehensive surveillance and monitoring program in
order to maximize the potential benefits of condensate polishing. Each of these
important areas is addressed in much more depth later in this document.
1-3
Resin
An important component in condensate polishing is the resin used in the ion exchange
process. Modern day ion exchange resins generally used for condensate polishing are
synthetic organic polymer skeletons functionalized to provide ion exchange capability.
Condensate polisher ion exchange resins typically are produced from

styrenedivinylbenzene (SDVB) copolymers. The SDVB copolymer consists of
polystyrene chains with divinylbenzene crosslinking between the styrene chains. The
SDVB copolymer-based ion exchange resin has the advantage over most other synthetic
polymers from a stability and capacity standpoint. The resin properties such as
hardness, swell, capacity, oxidation resistance, and organic leachables can be modified
1
by variation in the divinylbenzene crosslink content .
Two types of ion exchange resins are normally used in condensate polishers: strong acid
cation resin and strong base anion resin. These resins are synthesized by adding the
appropriate functional group to the copolymer aromatic ring. Cation resin is formed by
adding a sulfonic acid group. The maximum suggested operating temperature for
hydrogen form cation resin is 80 to 105°C (180 to 220°F) for condensate polishing
applications. A quaternary ammonium exchange site is formed on the copolymer to
form strong base anion resin. Type 1 anion resin is normally used for condensate
polishing applications because of its temperature stability. The recommended
temperature limit is 60°C (140°F).
Physical Characteristics
Studies of the initial SDVB resins indicated that they had essentially homogeneous
crosslinked polyelectrolyte gel structures with ion exchange sites distributed
throughout the particle as illustrated on Figure 1-3. The pore structures of these gel
resins are determined by the distances between the polymer chains and crosslinks
under any particular set of operating conditions. The pore structure, which has quite ill-
defined, small diameter pores (<30 angstroms), generally is considered to be comprised
of molecular type pores2.
Another polymerization technique was developed that yielded an ion exchange resin
2
structure entirely different from the homogeneous gel resins . Phase separation during
the polymerization process leads to polymer beads composed of microspheres joined
together at points of contact. The spaces between the microspheres form
interconnecting pores. This structure has discrete pores within the polymer bead3. The
average pore size of this macroporous resin is determined by the size of the
microspheres. Condensate polisher macroporous resin pore diameters generally are in
the 60 to 1000 angstrom range2.
1-4
Figure 1-3 Typical Structure of Hydrated Gel Type Cation Resin
The copolymer substrate for ion exchange resins is synthesized as small spheres within
a predetermined particle size range. Condensate polishing resin beads generally are in
the 50 to 16 mesh range (0.3 to 1.2 mm diameter). (Table 1-1 shows the relation between
mesh, mm, and microns.) The copolymer bead may be synthesized with either the gel or
macroporous structure. Cation and anion resins can be produced from the copolymer
by sulfonation or amination, respectively, of the polymer beads.
Powdered resins are made by grinding bead resins. The bead resins are ground to less
than 200 US mesh particles (0.07 mm diameter). Gel type 8 and 10% crosslinked resins
normally are ground to produce powdered resins used for condensate polishing
applications.
Several of the major resin manufacturers have developed manufacturing techniques

which allow them to produce ion exchange resin beads with a narrow particle size
distribution range. The primary advantage claimed for these resins is better separation
of mixed resins.
Ion exchange resins can be purchased in several different ionic forms. Hydrogen form
cation resins and hydroxide form anion resins should be used for mixed bed condensate
1-5
polishers. Hydroxide form anion resin and either hydrogen or amine form cation resin
are recommended for powdered resin polishers.
Resin Properties
The generic cycle diagram on Figure 1-4 shows the typical location of condensate
polisher systems in the steam cycle feedwater train. The condensate polisher system
serves two purposes. The resins remove suspended solids (primarily corrosion products
of steam cycle materials of construction) by filtration and remove dissolved solids by
ion exchange.
Filtration. Suspended solids in the condensate are primarily corrosion products. These
are predominately iron oxides but also include other metal oxides, such as nickel and
copper oxides. Ion exchange resins, either powdered resin precoats or deep bed mixed
bead resins act as effective filters. The highly charged surfaces of anion and cation
exchange resins make the resins a considerably more effective filter than uncharged
media such as sand, charcoal, or other media. The mechanisms by which they remove
particles of iron oxides are complex and have been intensely studied.
Table 1-1
Data Relating To US Standard Screen Scale
Sieve Opening Size
Sieve (mesh)
Number Millimeter Inches Microns
10 2.0 0.0787 2000
12 1.68 0.0661 1680
14 1.41 0.0555 1410
16 1.19 0.0469 1190
18 1.0 0.0394 1000
20 0.84 0.0331 840
25 0.71 0.0280 710
30 0.59 0.0232 590
35 0.50 0.0197 500
40 0.42 0.0165 420
1-6
Table 1-1
Data Relating To US Standard Screen Scale
45 0.35 0.0138 350
50 0.297 0.0117 297
60 0.250 0.0098 250
70 0.210 0.0083 210
80 0.177 0.0070 177
100 0.149 0.0059 149
120 0.125 0.0049 125
140 0.105 0.0041 105
170 0.088 0.0035 88
200 0.074 0.0029 74
230 0.062 0.0024 62
270 0.053 0.0021 53
325 0.044 0.0017 44
400 0.37 0.0015 37
1-7
Figure 1-4 Typical Cycle Location for Condensate Polishing Systems
The oxides found in condensate varies by both plant type and by the type of chemical
conditioning used. Plants using AVT with hydrazine addition such as PWRs tend to
form iron oxides which are predominately magnetite and hematite. Plants using
neutral, oxygenated chemistry such as BWRs tend to form amorphous iron oxides.
Deep Beds. Filtration efficiency is a function of resin specific surface area, surface
charge, particle size, particle velocity, and particle size distribution. Mechanical
filtration of resin beds is related to the number of resin bead intersections in a given
resin volume4. It is also dependent on the type and iron oxide being filtered. Laboratory
studies51 showed that the electrokinetic interaction between hematite particles and resin
1-8
beads influenced the filtration process. Corrosion product particle surface charge
generally is positive in low to neutral pH solutions and negative in high pH solutions
and electrokinetic potentials for anion and cation resin are positive and negative,
respectively5. The results suggest that boiling water reactor (BWR) corrosion products in
neutral condensate are attracted to cation resin while pressurized water reactors (PWR)
and fossil corrosion products in alkaline condensate are attracted to anion resin. Other
work33 suggests that magnetite from all volatile treatment (AVT) cycles is attracted to
cation resin while hydrated iron oxides bridge both cation and anion resins. Work at a
PWR with cation-mixed bed system shows that 90% of the iron crud under startup
9
conditions is removed by the cation beds . Regardless of the mechanisms, experience
has shown that mixed bed resins are effective filters.
In-depth filtration is obtained in condensate polisher deep beds because the flow rate is
sufficiently high to avoid filtration only on the inlet surface of the bed. In-depth
filtration increases the particulate filtration capacity of the bed to a given pressure drop
across the bed.
Corrosion product removal efficiencies for approximately 3 ft deep mixed resin fossil
and PWR condensate polishers, using all-volatile treatment (AVT), are in the range of 60
to 90% for iron, copper, and nickel4, 6. The cation to anion resin ratio for PWR and fossil
stations generally is 2 to 1 by volume (approximately 4 to 1 equivalence ratio) to
maximize the time required for the pH additive to exhaust hydrogen form cation resin
(hydrogen cycle operation).
Decreasing resin bead size improves filtration but also increases bed pressure drop.
Condensate polisher resin vendors normally recommend 16 to 40 U.S. mesh (1.19 to 0.42
mm) cation resin and 20 to 50 US mesh (0.84 and 0.30 mm) anion resin. These mesh
sizes give a reasonable compromise between pressure differential and properties
important for ion exchange, such as kinetics, hydraulic separation, etc. Pilot studies
showed little difference between gel and macroporous resins for filtration of fossil
station corrosion products4. The same study indicated that uniform particle size resin
filtration performance in fossil plant condensate polishers was essentially the same as
4
other resin systems . The filtration efficiency for crystalline corrosion products in
alkaline fossil and PWR station condensate does not appear to be affected significantly
by the type of condensate polisher resin. Fossil and PWR stations with deep bed
polishers usually emphasize ion exchange more than filtration when selecting resins.
Condensate and feedwater systems of BWRs are constructed of all-ferrous materials

and operate at neutral pH with oxygen present. Consequently, most BWRs have a
significant amount of amorphous iron oxide along with the other forms of iron7.
Amorphous iron is more difficult to remove than crystalline corrosion products because
it is removed by adsorption on resin bead surfaces rather than filtration7. Maintenance
of the 2 ppb feedwater iron concentration guideline value at US BWRs is difficult
because condensate polisher removal efficiencies generally are in the 50 to 75% range. A
1-9
new, potentially useful 6% crosslinked cation resin with different morphology than that
of a typical gel resin has recently been developed which shows promise of improved
BWR corrosion product removal efficiencies8. However, release of sulfur bearing
compounds from such resins may limit use of currently available resins.
During post-outage plant startups or cycling operation at fossil and PWR stations,
significant quantities of amorphous corrosion products may be present in the steam
cycle. Startup operation with hydrogen form cation resin should improve amorphous
corrosion product removal. Reduced polisher flow rates permit time for adsorption of
amorphous corrosion products on the resin surfaces and may improve removal
efficiency9. However, station evaluation is necessary because the nature and quantity of
corrosion products differ from one station to another.
Powdered Resin Precoat Filters. Condensate filter demineralizers (FDs) are excellent
filters when properly precoated. A good FD precoat also operates as a depth filter (body
as opposed to surface). Initially, the precoat has high porosity and strong electrostatic
activity. Corrosion product particles smaller than the precoat pores enter the precoat
layer and are electrostatically adsorbed by the ion exchange resin. Most filtration occurs
in the body of the precoat and the removal efficiency is superior to bead resin because
of the large resin surface area and small precoat pore size.10 As particulates are adsorbed
in the precoat and cation resin is exhausted by ion exchange, the resin electrostatic
charge is neutralized and cation resin pH increases. The precoat then separates into
smaller floc clumps and precoat porosity decreases.10 Eventually the loss of porosity and
corrosion product oxide precipitated in the resin interstices because of increasing pH,
prevents particulates from entering the precoat, and they are trapped on the surface of
the precoat layer. The surface filtration blinds the precoat surface and pressure drop
across the filter rapidly increase. A typical operating curve is shown on Figure 1-5.10
Powdered resin condensate polisher vendors generally recommend a 20 to 25 psi
differential pressure endpoint.
1-10
Figure 1-5 Filter Demineralizer Differential Pressure Behavior

(Source: Reference 10)
The precoats on FDs are more effective for iron removal than are deep beds, but the thin
precoat provides only limited ion exchange capacity. Particulate corrosion product
removal efficiencies of 80 to 99% for iron and copper are similar for fossil and PWR
polishers6, 11. Generally, corrosion product removal for BWRs, which maintain neutral
pH in the presence of dissolved oxygen, improves with increasing cation to anion resin
ratio in the precoat5, 10. Cation to anion resin ratios (dry weight basis) recommended by
resin vendors vary between 2 to 1 and 4 to 5 (chemically equivalent). In some cases, a
resin/cellulose fiber mixture or a resin precoat with fiber overlay is used to improve FD
run lengths and reduce precoat cracking12. Ion exchange fibers currently are being used
as an alternative at some plants.
Ion Exchange. Strong acid cation resins are comparable in acid strength to hydrochloric
acid and will form stable ionic bonds with most cations13. Likewise, strong base anion
1-11
resins are comparable to sodium hydroxide and will form stable bonds with most
anions13. The only exceptions are ions with complex structures or organic ions which are
too large or are hindered from entering the interior of the resin particles. However, not
all bonds between the resins and different ions are of equal strength. All ion exchange
resins have preferences for different ions which are referred to as resin selectivities.
Selectivity. At concentrations below one-tenth normal, divalent ion selectivity is higher

than that for monovalent ions. Trivalent selectivity is the highest. A qualitative example
of strong acid cation resin selectivity in decreasing order is as follows:
+++
Fe >Ca++ >Fe++ >Ni++ >Cu++ >Mg++ >K+ >NH4+ >Na+ >H+
The selectivity of resins for the morpholinium ion generally is less than for ammonium
ion and varies with resin type.
Similarly, for Type I strong base anion resin:
SO4= >CO3= >NO3- >Cl- >HCO3- > CHOO- >CH3COO- >F- >OH-
These selectivities, which are for low flow rate operation, may not be apparent for high
flow rate condensate polishers because of ion exchange kinetic effects.
The effect of selectivity on the movement of ions through cation and anion exchange
beds at low flow rates is shown on Figure 1-6. The lower selectivity ions exchanged on
the resin are replaced by the ions with higher selectivity ions so that the ions form
bands on the resin as the resin bed exhaustion progresses. As the resin bed exhaustion
proceeds, the ions with lower selectivity move further along the bed in the direction of
the flow path. For beds with nonuniform flow across the surface of the resin bed, the
resin exhausts faster in the area of high linear flow (and is therefore exposed to higher
amounts of exhausting ion) than for the lower flow areas (Figure 1-6b). Ion exchange in
mixed beds is more complicated since exhausting either the anion or cation component
influences the performance of the other resin. Also, kinetics become important at
condensate polishing flow rates and will have an effect on the ion distribution in the
polisher bed. For example, sulfate kinetic leakage may be observed before chloride even
though the resin has a higher selectivity for sulfate.
1-12
Figure 1-6 Effect of Selectivity on Ion Movement Through Ion Exchange Beds
The selectivity coefficient is used to express the relative affinity for exchange of two ions
by ion exchange resin. For example, the following shows the exchange of sodium ions
by hydrogen form cation resin:
Na + + RH ↔ H + RNa (eq. 1)
In this case, the selectivity coefficient is given by:
1-13
[RNa][H + ]
K HNa = = 1.5 (eq. 2)
[RH][Na + ]
Similarly, expressions for other exchange reactions can be developed, such as the one
describing sodium-ammonia exchange in ammonia form operation:
[RNa][NH +4 ]
NH4 =
K Na = 0.8 (eq. 3)
[ RNH4][Na + ]
[RCl][OH − ]
OH = = 1.7
K Cl (eq. 4)
[ROH][Cl − ]
where:
K yx = Equilibrium coefficient for ion exchange of “x” ions on “y” y form resin
Rx = Concentration of “x” ion on the resin, eq/L

H+ = Solution hydrogen ion concentration at equilibrium, eq/L
Na+ = Solution sodium ion concentration at equilibrium, eq/L
NH4+ = Solution ammonia ion concentration at equilibrium, eq/L
Cl- = Solution chloride ion concentration at equilibrium, eq/L
OH- = Solution hydroxide ion concentration at equilibrium, eq/L
Typical sodium selectivity coefficients relative to hydrogen, ammonium, and

morpholinium are given in Table 1-2. Cation resin sodium-hydrogen and sodium-
organic amine selectivities increase with increasing cation resin crosslinkage and
decrease with increasing sodium exchanged on the resin14,15,16. In addition, the sodium-
morpholinium selectivity of 20% crosslinked resin increases with increasing solution
morpholine concentration16. However, cation resin ammonium-hydrogen selectivity
changes little with divinylbenzene crosslinking density15.
The anion resin selectivity coefficient for exchange of chloride on hydroxide form resin
is defined by Equation 4. Chloride elution leakage is dependent on hydroxide ion
concentration at the bed outlet and is dependent of the amine added for pH control14.
Although anion resin selectivity has not been investigated as extensively as cation resin
selectivity, the chloride-hydroxide coefficient of 17 given in equation 4 gives an estimate
of chloride leakage as a function of bed effluent pH and anion resin exhaustion to
chloride.
1-14
Table 1-2
Cation Resin Sodium Selectivities at Low Sodium Concentrationa
a
Sodium Selectivity Coefficient for Indicated Type of Resin
Resin Ionic Form 8% Gel 10% Gel 12% Macro 20% Macro
Hydrogen 1.5 1.5 1 to 2.2 2 to 4
Ammonium 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Morpholinuim -- 1.0 2 to 3 12 to 35
a
References 15 and 16.
Capacity. Either gel-type or macroporous bead resins can be used in condensate

polishers, as listed in Table 1-3. Cation resin wet volume capacities vary between 1.65
and 2.1 meq/ml. Macroporous resins generally exhibit the lower capacities because the
resin beads are 10 to 30% pores, by volume. Similarly, the anion resin capacities range
from 0.8 to 1.1, with the macroporous form usually having the lower capacities.
The new resin capacities are important for polisher systems that replace exhausted
resins with new resins. The higher capacities generally should decrease resin
replacement frequency, although capacity is not always the controlling factor. When
resins are regenerated, the recovery of hydrogen or hydroxide capacity achieved during
regeneration (operating capacity) is more important than initial, new resin capacity.
Operating capacities are dependent on the quantity of regenerant used, the resin type,
and contaminant loading.
Kinetics. Bead resin kinetic performance will deteriorate with extended use because of
contaminant accumulation on the bead surfaces and capacity degradation. Resin bead
fouling may be a problem for regenerated resins and for BWR resins which are cleaned
regularly but not regenerated. Since powdered resins are used only for one cycle,
powdered resins are not subject to long-term fouling and capacity loss problems.
Anion resins are susceptible to loss of strong base capacity (salt splitting capacity) as
well as fouling by organics and iron. These effects reduce the usable capacity and
increase anionic slip through the bed. At the normal condensate polisher design flow
2 2
rate of 50 gpm/ft (2040 liters/m -min), anion resins are operating near their kinetic
17
limit . Therefore, it is important that the best available resin is used, and the resin
performance is tested regularly. Accumulation of organic or iron foulants on anion resin
beads also increase bead density, making the anion resin more difficult to separate from
1-15
the cation resin prior to mixed bed regeneration. However, the major difficulties in
separation of cation and anion resins relate to equipment design and operation.
Iron oxides removed by the condensate polisher sometimes can accumulate on cation
resin beads. This surface fouling degrades cation kinetics and possibly filtering
efficiency. Vigorous scrubbing and backwashing during regeneration or thorough
ultrasonic cleaning will minimize corrosion product fouling. Cation resin kinetics
generally do not degrade as fast as anion resin kinetics and, therefore, usually are not a
serious problem. Decrosslinking of cation resin as it is oxidized in continued service
and/or incomplete polymerization during the manufacturing process can be a source of
organic sulfonates which foul the anion resin. Regular testing of cation and anion resin
is important to identify possible problems and to determine the advisability of resin
replacement.
Deep Bed Resin Regeneration
Ion exchange of condensate impurities eventually will exhaust the resin capacity
sufficiently that resin replacement or regeneration is required. BWRs in the United
States currently replace exhausted deep bed polisher resin with new resin. Fossil and
PWR station normally regenerate exhausted cation and anion resins with sulfuric acid
and sodium hydroxide, respectively. PWR plants normally regenerate the polisher beds
at the ammonia or amine break on those stations employing volatile amines. This is in
order to maintain low steam generator impurity levels. Drum boiler fossil station
polisher effluent impurity levels are somewhat less restrictive so that operation through
the cation resin transition from hydrogen to ammonium form is practiced at some
stations. The operation of the regeneration systems is covered in Chapter 4. The
following discussion is limited to resin concerns.
Table 1-3
Ion Exchange Resin Capacities
Type Cross Linkage Ionic Form Capacity, meq/mL
Cation Resins
Gel 8 H+ 1.8
Gel 10 H+ 1.9-2.0
Macroporous 12 H+ 1.7-2.0
Macroporous 20 H+ 1.65-1.9
1-16
Table 1-3
Ion Exchange Resin Capacities
Type Cross Linkage Ionic Form Capacity, meq/mL
Anion Resins
Gel -- OH- 1.1
Porous Gel OH- 1.0
Macroporous -- OH- 0.8-1.0
Cation Resin Regeneration
Sulfuric acid normally is used to regenerate cation resin to the hydrogen form. Some
foreign plants use hydrochloric acid which removes corrosion products from the resin
more effectively than does sulfuric acid. However, plants designed for sulfuric acid
regeneration cannot use hydrochloric acid without some changes in regeneration
system materials18. Resin vendors recommend sulfuric acid concentrations of 4 to 10%
by weight. As shown on Figures 1-7 and 1-8, elution of sodium from cation resin
becomes more difficult with increasing divinylbenzene crosslinking 15, 19. Similarly, the
difficulty of regenerating ammonium form resin increases with crosslinkage.
Consequently, gel type cation resins with 8 to 10% crosslinkage require less acid to
recover a given capacity than macroporous resins with 12 to 20% crosslinking.
Typical curves for the regeneration of sodium and ammonium form cation resin are
given on Figure 1-920. Regeneration efficiency decreases with increasing fraction of
hydrogen form resin and decreases rapidly above approximately 10 lb acid/ft3. More
complete removal of ionic contaminants leads to longer polisher service cycles and
lower ionic leakage.
Low sodium leakage can be easily achieved during hydrogen cycle operation. However,
ammonium cycle operation requires very low resin sodium contamination21.
1-17
Figure 1-7 Cation Resin Regeneration with Sulfuric Acid (Source: Reference 19)
1-18
Figure 1-8 Elution of Sodium From Cation Resin (Source: Reference 15)
1-19
Figure 1-9 Elution of Sodium and Ammonium Ions from *% DVB Cation Resin
Anion Resin Regeneration
Anion resins are regenerated with sodium hydroxide. Resin vendor concentration
recommendations are 4 to 6% sodium hydroxide by weight. One proprietary process,
however, uses a concentrated (up to 16% by weight) sodium hydroxide in order to
separate anion resin from remaining traces of cation resin. In such a solution, anion
resin floats and the more dense cation sinks to the bottom of the vessel and can be
1-20
removed. In this process, the sodium hydroxide solution also functions as the anion
resin regenerant.
Chloride elution curves for various new, Type I strong base anion resins are shown on
Figure 1-2022. Chloride is difficult to remove from Type I anion resin. In some instances,
a two-stage displacement regeneration is used for anion resin to remove chloride. The
chloride is displaced with either sulfate or carbonate. The sulfate or carbonate form
resin is then conventionally regenerated with sodium hydroxide. This is a method
typically used by resin suppliers to convert chloride form resin to hydroxide form resin.
Sulfate removal efficiency increases with increasing sodium hydroxide regenerant
23
concentration .
Resin Ratio
The relative quantity of cation and anion resin in mixed bed polishers commonly is
expressed as a volume ratio. The equivalence and weight ratios depend on the
characteristics of the particular resins. The volume ratio can be converted to equivalence
ratio by multiplying the resin volume by the wet volume capacities for specific resins.
Similarly, weight ratios are calculated by multiplying the volume of resin times density.
In plants using amines for condensate and feedwater conditioning, such as fossil units
and PWRs, the operating time to ammonia breakthrough decreases with increasing pH
and increases with cation resin operating capacity and cation to anion resin ratio. In this
case, a 2 to 1 cation to anion volume ratio appears to offer a reasonable compromise
between run length and anion exchange efficiency. This ratio, on a chemical equivalence
basis, may be as high as 4:1 to allow a longer period of operation prior to exhaustion of
the cation resin to amine. For example, for a station operating with ammonia for pH
control, a cation to anion resin volume ratio of 2:1, a bed flow rate of 50 gpm/ft2 (2040
liters/m2-min) and a 3 ft (0.9 meter) deep bed, exhaustion of the cation resin by
ammonia leads to ammonium breakthrough in 11 to 15 days at pH 9.0 and 3 to 4 days at
pH 9.4.
In systems equipped with cation beds followed by mixed beds, the pH control additive
and cation impurities are removed by the upstream cation bed, thus requiring primarily
anion impurity removal by the mixed bed. Therefore, a mixed bed cation to anion
volume ratio of 1:3 to 1:4 can be used.
1-21
Figure 1-10 Regeneration of Type I Chloride from Anion Resin with Sodium Hydroxide
Once through systems using oxygenated treatment (OT) are moderately buffered
systems which use pH value ranges from 8.0 to 8.5. For such systems using mixed bed
polishing, the use of a 2:1 by volume ratio allows operation up to ammonia
breakthrough of around 30 days. Operation beyond ammonia breakthrough is not
recommended for such systems. While resin ratios with higher anion fractions could be
used, 2:1 resin ratios continues to be recommended to allow flexibility to operate at
higher pH values during periods of poor water quality or condenser leakage.
1-22
In neutral water systems like BWR systems, only condensate impurity ions need to be
removed, a 1 to 1 equivalence ratio is normally used. In this case, a chemically
equivalent resin ratio (cation to anion resin volume ratio of approximately 2 to 3) is
preferred for ionic removal, but other resin ratios may be selected to improve corrosion
product removal. When other than a chemically equivalent bed is employed, extreme
caution is needed to prevent development of highly acidic or caustic chemistries in the
reactor vessel during periods of significant condenser in-leakage.
In BWRs, the resins are used on a throw-away basis; i.e., the resins are replaced prior to
or subsequent to reaching kinetic, pressure drop or exhaustion limits. However, the
resins are intermittently cleaned, generally with an ultrasonic resin cleaner (refer to
Figure 1-18) to remove suspended corrosion products and resin fines, thereby
minimizing long-term pressure drop buildup.
Recommended resin ratios are summarized in Chapter 4.
Polisher Vessel Design
Mixed Bed Service Vessels
A schematic of a typical mixed bed condensate demineralizer system and associated

regeneration equipment was shown on Figure 1-1. In this approach, condensate is
passed through a 3 to 4 foot deep bed of 20 to 50 mesh bead resin to remove ionic and
particulate impurities. Process vessels may be spherical or cylindrical. The condensate
flow rate generally is maintained at 40 to 60 gpm/ft2 (1630 to 2450 L/m2-min) of bed
cross-sectional area.
Examples of typical polisher vessels are shown on Figures 1-11 through 1-15. The
distributors and underdrains shown in these figures generally can be used with either
cylindrical or spherical vessels. Key design features of the vessels are discussed below.
Influent Water Distribution. Water distribution is affected by both the inlet distributor
and the underdrain. The function of these is to provide uniform water flow across the
surface area of the resin bed and thus uniform flow throughout the resin volume. The
condensate flow of about 50 gpm/ft2 (2040 L/m2-min) through the bed must be
distributed to prevent jets and eddies that fluidize the resin. The inlet distributors
shown in Figure 1-11 and 1-13 should provide reasonable influent water distribution.
The distributors shown on Figure 1-12, 1-14, and 1-15 potentially can cause jets and
eddies which can fluidize the top of the resin bed. However, it should be noted that the
minor turbulence caused by some distributors is dampened by the water column above
the bed.
1-23
Figure 1-11 Typical Spherical Condensate Polisher Vessel with Parallel Lateral
Underdrain
1-24
Figure 1-12 Typical Spherical Polisher Vessel with Convex Support Plate
1-25
Figure 1-13 Typical Spherical Polisher Vessel with Wedge Wire Screen Underdrain
1-26
Figure 1-14 Typical Cylindrical Polisher Vessel with Drop Leg Underdrain
1-27
Figure 1-15 Typical Cylindrical Polisher Vessel with Parallel Lateral Underdrain
Resin fluidization allows particulate matter to penetrate into the bed and causes
nonuniform flow over the bed area because of pressure drop variations through
different depths of compacted resin. Only the packed resin will act effectively to filter
particulate matter and remove ionic contaminants. Areas of high flow cause premature
leakage of impurities. Figure 1-16 illustrates two different, adverse geometries caused
by resin fluidization.
Underdrains. The vessel underdrain design must provide for uniform flow through the
resin bed, allow complete removal of exhausted resin, protect against resin leakage, and
provide sufficient support to withstand expected weight and hydraulic forces.
Achieving uniform flow requires maintaining a uniform resin bed depth and providing
a bed support which allows equal flow through the entire support surface. Parallel
laterals (Figure 1-11 and Figure 1-15) and flat wedge wire screen or mesh screens
(Figure 1-13) supported by perforated plates possess these qualities. Dished or convex
support plates as on Figure 1-12 and laterals with drop-legs to the hemispherical head
of the polisher vessel (Figure 1-14) result in resin bed depth variations and nonuniform
1-28
resin exhaustion across the bed50. Resin capacity is lost when laterals are significantly
above the bottom of the resin bed as on Figure 1-15. In addition, underdrains with
insufficient distribution capability cause high local velocities near takeoff points. These
high local velocitions result in stagnant areas which lead to some decreased effluent
water quality and resin utilization.
When exhausted resin is transferred to the regeneration system, complete resin removal
from the polisher vessel is essential. Laterals or nozzles above the polisher vessel resin
support, if not properly designed, can impede the removal of resin. Upflow of water
through the underdrain, coupled with a supply of water to the vessel walls from a
nozzle or distribution ring, will sluice the resin to the transfer pipe so that complete
transfer of the exhausted resin can be achieved. If necessary, the vessel can be partially
refilled and air sparged while draining to assist in the transfer.
Sight Glasses. Sight glasses are highly desirable to permit observation of the key steps
in the condensate polisher operation. Proper water distribution and complete resin
transfer can be verified only by viewing the inside of the polisher vessel. Clear
observation of the inside of the vessel can be accomplished only by internal lighting or
light directed through one sight glass while one looks through another. However, some
field experience indicates that site glass cracking and corrosion product deposition on
the glass can be problems. Additionally, it is difficult to install proper sight glasses for
high-pressure systems. Sight glass installation should assure that a smooth surface is
maintained inside the service vessel; otherwise, resin may be trapped in the sight glass
housing.
1-29
Figure 1-16 Adverse Effects of Fluidizing Resin
Resin Traps. Resin traps should be designed to prevent gross ingress of resin into the
feedwater system in the event of polisher vessel underdrain damage or failure.
Generally, they should not be designed to retain resin fines.
Resin Mixing Provisions. Initial mixing of the cation and anion exchange resins
normally is performed in a regeneration vessel prior to transfer of the regenerated resin
to the polisher vessel. However, some segregation of the cation and anion resins will
take place during the transfer and recharging of the polisher vessel, making the upper
part of the bed anion resin-inch and the lower part cation resin-inch. Air mixing in the
polisher vessel will rectify this problem. Use of air also can assist in resin transfer out of
1-30
the polisher vessel, although this is rarely used. Limited consideration has been given to
the use of nitrogen rather than air in new installations to reduce anion resin exposure to
carbon dioxide and to minimize the potential for resin contamination by oil.
Polisher Operation
Full flow rather than partial flow polishing is the most common and preferred approach
to condensate polishing. Although pretreatment normally is not used, some stations
have precoat or fixed media filters installed upstream of the mixed beds to improve
corrosion product removal. In some PWRs and in many foreign fossil units, a cation
resin bed is installed upstream of the mixed beds. The cation resin bed serves as a
corrosion product prefilter and improves the ion exchange efficiency of the mixed bed
by removing the pH control additive upstream of the mixed bed.
In some plants, polisher systems are designed only for partial condensate flow (20 to
30% of full power flow rate) and are used primarily to reduce suspended solids
(corrosion products) and dissolved solids during startups. In other cases, only one or
two beds of a full flow system are operated during normal power operation to control
secondary cycle pH and minimize impurity levels.
Recycle
Prior to placing the vessel into service, the polisher vessel should be given a slow rinse
to remove air-saturated water containing high ionic contaminant concentrations. This
water should be discharged to waste if possible. After the slow rinse and before return
to service, a recycle pump (Figure 1-17) should be used to recirculate condensate
through the vessel for a fast rinse at least one half of the normal operating flow rate. A
more typical practice is the use of recycle only, which has proved to be acceptable.
Impurities released from freshly regenerated mixed beds, when they are put into
service, generally are the result of ion exchange taking place in a resin layer at the
bottom on the bed24, 25. The high flow rate recirculation system will transfer these
contaminants to the top of the polisher bed, if recycle is routed back to the initiating
vessel. Thus, chemistry transients caused by inadequately rinsed resins at the beginning
of a new service cycle are minimized. Flushing and compaction of the resin bed during
the fast rinse also improves initial particulate impurity removal, and reduces particulate
release. Alternatively, a high flow rate recirculation to the hotwell provides similar
benefits; however, the contaminants are distributed to all beds instead of returning to
the same bed.
1-31
Figure 1-17 Condensate Polisher Recycle
Polisher outlet water is used for the high flow rinse, when a local recycle pump is used,
the rinse can continue for an extended time without exhausting the cation resin with
ammonium or other amine ions. This would not be the case for use of recirculation to
the hotwell.
Service Cycle Termination
Condensate polisher vessel service runs may be terminated on the basis of ammonia (or
amine) breakthrough, impurity leakage, differential pressure, time, or volume
throughput. Stations may terminate the service cycle and regenerate the resin beds at a
predetermined throughput or when the pH control chemical (such as ammonia) has
exhausted sufficient cation resin to cause an increase in bed effluent conductivity
(amine breakthrough). Others operate beyond ammonia or amine break and operate to
1-32
an impurity leakage endpoint such as silica, sodium, or chloride, or to a specific

throughput. Operation past the transition from the hydrogen to ammonium form resin
increases sodium and chloride concentrations and should be used only where stations
have installed specific equipment or operational features to allow such operation. In all
cases, the polisher bed service cycle should be terminated when bed effluent quality
approaches the water quality limits (described in Chapter 2) or at the maximum
allowable bed differential pressure.
BWR stations in the United States currently do not regenerate mixed bed resins. The
resins are periodically cleaned and returned to service. The beds are taken out of service
for cleaning according to time, volume throughput, or differential pressure. The resin
cleaning cycle varies with polisher system operating parameters and is plant specific.
Flow Transients and Outages
Compaction of the resin bed during operation varies with bed flow rates as a result of
pressure differential. The collection of particulate corrosion products in the bed further
increases the pressure drop. The resin bed can expand with decrease in flow rate
allowing the corrosion products to penetrate deeper into the bed or be released in the
effluent. Polisher bed flow changes, such as those which occur when a vessel is being
added or removed from service or during condensate flow rate changes associated with
power transients, should be made as slowly as possible.
During outages, all vessels containing resin should be filled with demineralized water.
Cleaning and regeneration of the resin beds is optional during short outages but should
be performed during major outages. Resin beds used for shutdown chemistry control in
nuclear units generally should not be used during startup unless the resin is
regenerated or replaced. During refueling and extended maintenance outages, sampling
the resins for analysis is recommended.
After a bed has been out of service, it must be rinsed by recycle to an acceptable effluent
conductivity before being put in service. Resin regeneration or replacement is required
if acceptable rinse conductivity cannot be achieved or if effluent purity is unacceptable
in service.
Regeneration
This discussion of regeneration is based upon the conventional system external

regeneration in three regeneration vessels. Variations from this conventional
arrangement are discussed later.
The conventional regeneration system consists of three vessels: the cation

regeneration/resin separation vessel, anion regeneration vessel, and resin mix and
storage vessel. Resin regeneration is initiated by transfer of exhausted resin from the
1-33
polisher vessel to the cation vessel. After the resin is cleaned by air scrubbing or passing
the resin through an ultrasonic resin cleaner (URC), it is backwashed to remove residual
corrosion product particulates and resin fines and to hydraulically separate the anion
resin from the cation resin. (Separation can be achieved since the anion resin has a lower
density than the cation resin and is purchased with a smaller average particle size.)
After separation, the anion resin is transferred to the anion vessel for caustic
regeneration, and the cation resin is acid-regenerated in the cation vessel. After the
regenerated cation and anion resin fractions are rinsed with demineralized water, they
are transferred to the resin mix and storage vessel. After air mixing, the mixed resin bed
is rinsed to a low effluent conductivity and stored. When required, this bed is used to
replace an exhausted resin bed in one of the process vessels. Each of these operations
are described in more detail in the following section.
Resin Transfers
Resin transfers are accomplished by fluidizing the resin with high purity water and
sluicing the resin to specially designed vessels in which resins are cleaned, separated,
and regenerated. Complete resin transfer from the service vessel to the resin separation
vessel is extremely important. In general, following bulk sluicing of the resin, an
additional step transferring the last of the resin from the service vessel is undertaken.
This may be accomplished by using special spray nozzles or by splashing water in the
service vessel. A high degree of completion of transfer is desirable in order to have the
best effluent quality and resin capacity. Plants with the most stringent water quality
requirements and planning to operate beyond amine breakthrough will need to achieve
the higher levels of resin transfer completeness, e.g., >99.99%. Plants with less stringent
effluent quality needs and operating only in the hydrogen cycle can be successful with
achieving less complete resin transfers.
Resin Cleaning
Suspended solid present in the condensate are primarily corrosion products which
collect on the surface of the resin beads. The corrosion products must be removed to
allow resin separation and regeneration as well as to retain good ion exchange kinetic
performance.
Most fossil stations or PWRs employ air agitation or scrubbing of the resin in one or
more of the regeneration vessels to loosen corrosion product deposits. Air scrubbing for
at least 10 minutes after transfer to the cation vessel is desired to loosen the corrosion
products before the separation backwash.
Swelling and contraction of the anion and cation resins during regeneration helps to
loosen adherent corrosion products. A post-regeneration air scrub and backwash will
1-34
remove additional corrosion products from the resin. In addition to cleaning the resin,
the process aids in rinsing the resins.
Resin cleaning at most BWR stations and a few PWRs and fossil stations is performed
with the General Electric developed ultrasonic resin cleaner (URC)27. The schematic of
the URC is given on Figure 1-18. Dirty resin enters the top of the URC and falls through
a counter-flow of water in the resin cleaning section. The eductor at the bottom transfers
the cleaned resin to another vessel. The water velocity in the resin cleaning section is
controlled to allow whole beads to fall to the bottom of the URC; corrosion product
particulates and resin fines are carried upward into the overhead stream.
The settling velocity of the resin beads is dependent on resin bead diameter, resin
density, and water temperature (viscosity) according to Strokes Law. Since Strokes Law
is for relatively dilute concentrations of particles in the fluid (volumetric fractions of
<0.1 %) and particle settling velocities decrease with increasing particle concentration
28
(frequently referred to as “hindered settling” ), resin settling velocities in the URC must
be corrected for resin concentration which generally is in the 5 to 10% volume range.
The upward velocity in the cleaning section is dependent on the actual resin/corrosion
product/water system hydraulic characteristics in the URC at each plant.
The water velocity in the cleaning section must be adjusted to ensure that whole resin
beads fall counter currently to the flow of water and smaller particulates are carried
upward into the overhead wastewater stream. The combined incoming slurry water
and backwash flow are passed through a flow straightener in the URC discharge section
where whole resin beads are disengaged from the water flow. The upward velocity of
water through these flow straighteners should be equal to that in the cleaning section to
prevent resin beads or fragments from accumulating in the hopper above the cleaning
section. Accumulation below the flow straighteners reduces cross-sectional flow area,
which alters flow hydraulics and promotes excessive resin carry-over. Careful control of
these two flows is critical for efficient URC operation. Upward velocities normally are
0.01 to 0.02 ft/sec. Although URC operation is not simple, these devices are very
effective when carefully operated. In some cases, the original flow control equipment
was not designed for remote operation, and upgrading the flow controls may improve
operability.
1-35
Figure 1-18 Ultrasonic Resin Cleaner (Source: Reference 27)
Mixed Bed Separation
Cation and anions resins must be separated before regeneration. Normally, mixed bed
resins are cleaned free of crud and other particulate matter before separation and
regeneration. Backwash is used to separate the resins. Backwash temperature has a
significant influence on bed expansion as shown on Figure 1-1929. Resin loss or
insufficient bed expansion to give good separation can result if flow rate is not adjusted
for temperature variations. After backwashing, the resins are allowed to settle and the
anion/cation interface level checked. Repeating the backwash and settling procedure
can improve separation and help assure more complete removal of loose corrosion
1-36
products. If possible, the cation bed should be expanded by approximately 50% during
the second backwash.
Resin separation is the most important step in mixed bed regeneration. Improper
separation leads to cross-contamination of the resin. Anion resin left in the cation resin
regeneration vessel will be converted to the bisulfate or sulfate form when exposed to
sulfuric acid during cation regeneration. Likewise, cation resin in the anion
regeneration vessel will be converted to the sodium form when exposed to caustic
during anion regeneration. Cross-contamination of resins will lead to increased sodium
and sulfate leakage during the next service cycle and is the single most important
contributor to leakage of ions from condensate polishing vessels. Thus, resin cross-
contamination must be minimized.
Many schemes and proprietary processes have been devised to minimize either cross-
contamination or the effects of cross-contamination. It should be noted that the adverse
impacts of cross-contamination are greatly reduced when service vessel production
runs are terminated prior to ammonia/amine break. Likewise, if the economic benefits
of operation beyond ammonia break are to be realized, i.e., ammonia/amine form
operation, cross-contamination or its effects must be minimized.
Controlling the anion/cation resin interface level is critical in the conventional

regeneration system design to minimize resin cross-contamination. If the interface is not
within 1 inch (2.5 cm) of design level (adjusted for resin form), cation resin addition or
removal is required (after repeating the backwash and settling steps) before the anion
resin transfer step is started.
1-37
Figure 1-19 Example of Condensate Polisher Resin Bed Expansion as a Function of

Backwash Temperature and Flow Rate (Source: Reference 29)
Even careful operation of conventional regeneration systems may not always provide
the desired degree of separation because of vessel design features. For example,
separator vessel lateral modifications and development of customized regeneration
procedures were necessary to reduce resin cross-contamination and regenerant
chemical leakage at one nuclear unit30. Special regeneration techniques can reduce cross-
contamination and/or its effects, thus reducing sodium and sulfate leakage. Special
approaches such as the bottom cation transfer technique and the resin cleaning, sizing,
and separation system can reduce cross-contamination.
1-38
Resin Transfer from Separation Vessel
In the conventional system, the anion resin is transferred to the anion regeneration tank
from the interface connection of the cation regeneration tank. Special procedures can be
used to minimize the amount of cation resin which is transferred to the anion
regeneration tank.
A well operated and maintained conventional regeneration system may not achieve
much better than 2 to 5 volume % cation in anion resin and 5 to 10 volume % anion in
cation resin after separation and transfer18. However, with customized operating
procedures, it is possible to reduce cross-contamination to 0.4% anion in cation resin
and 0.5% cation in anion resin30. Use of advanced separation techniques can significantly
reduce resin cross-contamination, and their use should be considered by any power
station seeking to improve the quality of its polished water. These include the
following:
• The bottom transfer technique: the employment of bottom transfer of separated
cation resin with the entry of the anion/cation resin from the conical base into the
transfer line being automatically sensed. The mixture of resin in the transfer line can
be isolated if desired.
• The interface isolation technique: separation in what are essentially conventional
separation vessels which have the added facilities to isolate the interface resins
during regeneration, thus minimizing cross-contamination in the remaining resins
which are regenerated.
• Resin cleaning, sizing, and separation equipment: separates by the controlled
feeding of mixed resins, which have been cleaned of crud and screened to remove
resin fines, into a column where there is a controlled upflow of water. The cation
resin sinks to the bottom of the column and is recovered, and the less dense anion
resin is swept out to the column to be recovered externally.
The effectiveness of these proprietary systems is such that cross-contamination ranging

from less than 0.1 to 0.1% by volume can be achieved. These proprietary systems are
described in more detail later.
Resin Regeneration
In fossil and PWR units, ammonia (or an alternate amine) used for pH control is the
main condensate polisher cation resin exhaustant. Increased polisher bed run lengths
are possible if the bed is operated through the cation resin transition from hydrogen to
ammonium form (ammonium cycle).However, ammonium cycle sodium and chloride
leakages are problems which must be considered. Maximum polisher effluent
concentrations of approximately 0.3 ppb are required to maintain recirculating steam
generator blowdown sodium and chloride concentrations at the PWR guideline levels
of 20 ppb when blowdown flow is equal to 1% of the feedwater flow rate. (Since
1-39
operation at much lower blowdown impurity concentrations is encouraged, ammonium

form operation generally is not recommended or achievable in recirculating steam
generator PWR systems.) The degree of regeneration for cation and anion resins
calculated to maintain bed effluent sodium and chloride equilibrium leakages of 0.3 ppb
as a function of ammonia adjusted pH is given in Table 1-4. Typical recirculating steam
generator blowdown concentrations generally are 1 to 5 ppb.
Table 1-4
Degree of Regeneration to Achieve Sodium and Chloride Leakages of 0.3 ppb
with Ammonia as a pH Control Additive
Effluent Anion Resin, % Cation Resin, % Form
pH Hydroxide Chloride Hydrogen Sodium
7.0 39 61 84 16 H+
8.8 97.6 2.4 99.8 0.2 NH4+
9.0 98.5 1.5 99.9 0.1 NH4+
9.2 99.0 1.0 99.94 0.06 NH4+
9.4 99.3 0.7 99.96 0.04 NH4+
As shown by the calculated values of Table 1-4, reducing cation resin contamination of
the anion resin to maintain blowdown sodium concentrations below 20 ppb, while
operating in the ammonia cycle, would require unrealistically complete resin separation
and high quantities of regeneration chemicals. Therefore, PWR and some fossil unit
polishers normally operate with hydrogen and hydroxide form resins (hydrogen cycle)
with the resins regenerated before ammonia breakthrough. The polisher bed operating
time to ammonia breakthrough varies with condensate pH (amine concentration).
Predicted ammonia breakthrough time based on a 3 ft deep mixed bed with 2 to 1
volume ratio cation to anion resin operated at 50 gpm/ft2 flow rate is given on Figure 1-
2031. For ammonia-conditioned condensate above a pH of 9.2, hydrogen cycle operating
times are short and the required regenerations become more frequent than are possible
for nuclear units with a large number of service vessels. Also, exhaustion of cation resin
by morpholine (used mostly by PWRs) occurs about three times faster than with
ammonia for the same condensate pH. Operation with ammonia or morpholine
conditioning at high pH can easily be handled by a cation-mixed bed system18.
1-40
Figure 1-20 Condensate Polisher Operating Time to Amine Breakthrough

As discussed later in this chapter, the minimum impurity leakage from a polisher bed
containing contaminated resin can be calculated by using resin selectivity coefficients.
Impurity leakage is lowest for hydrogen/hydroxide (H/OH) form demineralizer
operation because of the low hydrogen and hydroxide ion concentrations at the bed
outlet.
Operation of polisher beds through the transition from hydrogen to ammonium form
cation resin results in increased sodium and chloride leakage from resins containing
these impurity ions but does not affect sulfate leakage significantly32, 33. Typical examples
1-41
of sodium and chloride leakage are given on Figures 1-21 and 1-22, respectively31.
Ammonia and sodium ions compete for cation resin exchange sites, and hydroxide and
chloride ions compete for anion resin exchange sites. Impurity leakage increases with
the fraction of the resin sites in the sodium or chloride forms and with polisher bed
effluent pH (increasing amine and hydroxide ion concentration).
Cation regeneration levels should be high enough to displace the ammonia from the
cation resin. This level is generally around 10 lb/ft3. Cation resin regeneration with 6 to
10% by weight sulfuric acid at a regeneration level of 10 to 12 lb acid per ft3 of resin (160
to 190 g/L) should give adequate removal of the ammonium ions. European practice
would be to use 5% sulfuric acid (120 to 160 g/L).
Regenerated cation resin can be cleaned free of crud for a second time if operating
experience shows this to be of value. This should be followed by a high flow rinse to a
20 µS/cm endpoint. Some adjustment of the rinse endpoint is acceptable, based upon
specific plant conditions.
A soaking technique may be used to minimize sulfate leakage following regeneration.

Soaking the rinsed cation resin for 8 to 16 hours followed by another rinse will remove
additional sulfuric acid34. The soak should be performed if there is sufficient time in the
regeneration cycle. Sulfate leakage is at a peak immediately after the freshly
regenerated resins are returned to service. The sulfate originates from residual sulfate
on the cation resin (which can be minimized by the resin soak period discussed above),
bisulfate-sulfate rearrangement from anion resin regenerated to the sulfate form (which
can be minimized by minimizing resin cross-contamination), and hydrolysis of sulfate
held on anion resin weakly basic groups. The amount of sulfate escaping the bed
depends on the degree of rinsing and soaking, the fraction of anion resin in the sulfate
form, and the degree of resin kinetic impairment. Experience shows that allowing the
bed to stand prior to the final preservice rinse reduces the sulfate leakage on return to
service. As shown on Figure 1-23, storing the bed for at least 24 hours before return to
service is very effective in minimizing sulfate leakage.
1-42
Figure 1-21 Sodium Leakage for Cation Resin (Source: Reference 31)
1-43
Figure 1-22 Chloride Leakage for Anion Resin (Source: Reference 31)
1-44
Figure 1-23 Effect of Storage on Mixed Bed Sulfate Release

Anion resin regenerations should be with a minimum of 4 to 6% weight sodium

hydroxide at 10 to 12 lb/ft3 resin (160 to 190 g/L). Regenerant levels of 6 to 20 lb NaOH
per ft3 of anion resin are recommended by resin vendors. The level of regenerant
required depends on anion resin contaminant levels. Regenerated anion resins can be
cleaned free of crud for a second time if operating experience shows this to be of value.
After the backwash, a high flow rinse is performed.
In the absence of condenser cooling water in-leakage and sodium contamination of

makeup water, the major sources of sodium contamination are conversion of cation
1-45
resin present in the anion resin to the sodium form during caustic regeneration and
sodium absorbed by the anion resin during regeneration. The best method of reducing
sodium leakage due to cross-contamination is to improve resin separation by attention
to the separation process or by employing a high efficiency separation process. The
situation can be improved by the use of a proprietary post-separation technique such as
that in which the anion resin is treated with 16% sodium hydroxide so as to float the
anion resin away from any contaminating cation resin, which is removed, and at the
same time regenerating the anion resin. Clearly, the resins used with such a procedure
must have adequate osmotic stability.
Alternatively, the separated and regenerated anion resins, with the small quantity of
cross-contaminating cation resin which is now in the sodium form, can be treated by
proprietary processes designed to elute the sodium. These include rinsing the anion
resin for a period of time with ammonium hydroxide solution or with a solution of
calcium hydroxide. Another technique is to limit the number of anion regenerations by
separating the mixed bed in the normal way on the exhaustion of the cation resin and
then regenerating only the cation resin. Obviously this can be practiced only in the
absence of impurity ingress, and care must be taken to ensure that an adequate anion
exchange capacity is maintained. Several stations have reported that the use of the
“missed anion regeneration” technique has resulted in a considerable reduction in the
levels of sodium in polished water35. More recently, a post-regeneration resin
purification technique known as “Resin on Resin” has been described and is being
36
successfully used by several power stations .
Resin Mixing and Final Rinse
The regenerated and rinsed resins normally are transferred to the storage vessel. After
the removal of all resins from the cation and anion regeneration vessels has been
verified, the resin is air mixed and stored until another service vessel is available for the
resin charge.
Resin Transfer to Service Vessel
When a service vessel has been emptied of its former resin bed, the bed from the resin
storage tank can be transferred to the empty service vessel. Some separation of cation
and anion generally occurs during the hydraulic transfer. Air mixing the resin in the
service vessel would ensure a homogeneous resin mixture, but this is generally not
available in the service vessels. After mixing, the vessel is filled and remains in standby
until it is needed to replace an exhausted polisher. Impurity ions on the resins are
released to the water phase in the idle vessel until equilibrium is reached between the
two phases. The contaminated water in the service vessel must be rinsed from the bed
prior to operation. Rinse water during the first 5 minutes should be routed to waste (if
such piping is available) because of the higher contaminant concentration. Often, this
1-46
rinse is accomplished only by the use of bed effluent recycle. After the water in the bed
has been displaced, recycle either by recirculation to the condenser or by local recycle is
started. The recirculation line should discharge to the top of the condenser, preferably
to a spray header, so that oxygen in the air saturated water is removed in the condenser
air removal section.
Typical Resin Regeneration System
Exhausted ion exchange resin is transferred as a water slurry from the deep bed
polisher vessel to a receiving vessel in preparation for regeneration. Conventional
regeneration system vessels and their features are described below. Figure 1-24 shows
schematically, the overall, three-vessel, regeneration process.
Cation Regeneration Separation vessel
Backwashing of the mixed resin to hydraulically separate the cation and anion resins
generally is performed in the cation vessel. A major determinant of condensate polisher
performance is the separation backwash step, which serves to separate the resins; the
lighter anion resin forms a layer on top of the heavier cation resin which collects at the
bottom of the vessel. When the backwash is performed properly, a distinct, level
interface is formed. Condensate polisher resin regeneration systems used in the United
States generally have a collector near the interface for transferring the anion resin to a
second vessel for regeneration. Recommendations for cation vessel internal design
given in this section are directed primarily toward improving resin separation and
subsequent transfer of the anion resin in a conventional regeneration system.
Although the cation regeneration/separation vessel usually receives the resin

transferred from the polisher vessel, some BWR stations have receiving vessels
associated with the URC equipment. The resins are either air-scrubbed and backwashed
in the cation vessel or passed through the URC to remove corrosion products. BWRs in
the United States periodically clean the resin but do not perform regenerations.
Underdrain and Backwash Distributor. The underdrain serves to distribute backwash

flow and airflow during the scrubbing operation, and to collect regenerant and rinse
water. During these operations, uniform flow distribution is required within the resin
bed and at the bed-support interface. Either laterals, nozzles, or perforated plates are
acceptable for the distributor, providing they are designed to give good flow
distribution. As in all ion exchange operations, the resin in the vicinity of the
distributors is not as effective as the resin farther from the distributors. Problems can be
created by the use of dished support plates, curved hub-laterals on a hemispherical
vessel head, or laterals or nozzles that are well above the resin support plate. A level
interface is not achievable with dished support plates or curved laterals because of
uneven flow distribution. Areas between and below the laterals become stagnant and
1-47
do not receive sufficient flow during the backwash step to separate the resins. The anion
resin remaining in the stagnant zone is converted to the bisulfate form by the acid
regenerant and becomes a source of sulfate when the regenerated bed is put in service.
Figure 1-24 Conventional Regeneration Procedure
Upper Distributor and Backwash Collection. An upper distributor similar to those

recommended for the polisher vessel should be used to provide adequate flow
distribution of rinse and backwash water.
Resin Interface Level. Cation vessel penetrations for the removal and addition of cation
resin are necessary to adjust the resin interface level before anion resin transfer. The
volume of cation or anion resin in individual charges varies because of incomplete
1-48
transfers, ionic form, bead fracturing, fines generation, loss of resin from the system,
and swelling of new resins as they take up additional water. As a consequence of these
volume changes, the interface between the separated resins can be above or below the
design location. When the interface level varies, regenerant chemicals can contact the
wrong resin, resulting in sodium contamination of cation resin and sulfate
contamination of anion resin. Thus, provision for removal and addition of resin should
be made in the vessel design to preclude these events.
Cation Vessel Volume. An interface cross-sectional area as small as possible is

recommended to optimize separation of the cation and anion resins in the cation vessel.
The vessel should also have sufficient freeboard volume for backwash flow rates high
enough to completely separate the resins. Anion resin density may increase as it
becomes fouled by organics or corrosion products. The best method of removing higher
density and large anion resin from the cation layer during hydraulic separation is to
increase the backwash flow rate. The higher flow gives additional expansion of the
cation resin (making it easier for anion beads to rise through the cation resin layer) and
lifts the heavier anion resin beads out of the cation resin layer. Allowing sufficient
freeboard for 100% expansion of the mixed resins generally permits adequate
separation and resin cleaning.
The difficulty of obtaining a level interface between the separated resins and the
potential for serious resin cross-contamination decreases with vessel diameter; for
example, a 1 inch layer of anion resin in the cation resin layer is a smaller fraction of the
total as the bed depth increases as the cation vessel diameter decreases. The cation
vessel diameter should be as small as economically feasible while maintaining sufficient
height below the backwash collector to allow 100% expansion of the mixed resin bed
during hydraulic separation. Some proprietary resin separation designs have
recognized this problem and use vessels with a very low cross-sectional area at the
cation-anion interface by using a conical based and bottom transfer of the cation resin.
Anion Collector. An excellent separation is necessary but not sufficient to assure

minimum resin cross-contamination and contact of resin with the wrong regenerant
chemical. In particular, contamination of the anion resin during transfer from the top of
the separated cation layer must also be minimized. This is the major purpose of the
anion collector, i.e., to minimize hydraulic disturbances which lead to resin inter-mixing
during the anion resin transfer step.
Several types of anion resin collectors are used at or near the cation resin/anion resin
interface in currently installed cation/separation vessels at power plants in the United
States. Typical designs include the following:
1. Side wall penetration through which anion resin is sluiced to the regeneration
vessel.
1-49
2. Anion transfer trough spanning the cation vessel diameter with a wall penetration at
one end.
3. Single or multiple upturned elbows.
4. Hub with radial laterals.
5. Header with parallel laterals.
Transfer of anion resin with minimum resin cross-contamination is difficult in vessels

with only side wall or single transfer lines at the center of the bed. Complete anion resin
removal cannot be accomplished with one transfer step without disturbing the interface
when the anion resin must be sluiced several feet across the vessel to reach the transfer
pipe. However, multiple backwash and anion transfer steps help to reduce cross-
contamination.
One station identified the transfer trough as the most significant source of cation resin
30
contamination in the anion resin . In this case, removal of the transfer trough reduced
cation resin transport with the anion resin. Good backwash flow distribution coupled
with multiple backwash and anion resin transfer steps yielded a resin cross-
contamination of 0.3 to 0.4% anion in cation resin and 0.4 to 0.5% cation in anion resin30.
Anion collector laterals with multiple holes to minimize the anion resin sluicing
distance should also minimize cross-contamination.
Acid Distributor. Locating the acid distributor immediately above the anion collector
laterals keeps the distributor close enough to the resin surface for good acid
distribution. The distributor needs a sufficient number of laterals or nozzles to supply
acid uniformly to the top of the resin bed.
Cation Resin Takeoff. To achieve complete cation resin removal from the vessel, the
cation resin should be removed either down through the center of the resin support
plate or through a pipe with a down-directed elbow located just above the resin support
plate at the vessel center line.
Sight Glasses. Sight glasses are indispensable for assuring proper resin separation. The
interface must be viewed to determine whether the interface is level and to determine
whether the addition or removal of cation resin is needed. Sight glasses immediately
above the bottom support plate, at the cation/anion resin interface, at the top of the
resin bed, and at the top of the vessel are recommended. There should be three glasses
at each level, placed 120° apart.
It is very desirable to have facilities which permit sampling of separated and mixed
resins in the regeneration plant. It is suggested that, if circumstances permit, a resin
sampling port of approximately 0.5 inch internal diameter be fitted at a height of 6 to 12
inches above the laterals or resin support plate of the vessel. Externally, a ball valve or
1-50
other suitable valve should be provided with a minimum length of connecting tube
between it and the vessel to minimize dead space. On the discharge side of the valve a
short section of tubing should be provided to facilitate resin sample collection.
Anion Vessel
The anion vessel serves for regenerating and rinsing the anion resin. The underdrain,
upper distributor, resin level adjustment penetration, regeneration chemical distributor,
and resin takeoff considerations discussed above for the polisher and cation vessels
should be referenced when the anion vessel design is reviewed. Sight glasses
immediately above the bottom support plate, at the top of the bed and at the top of the
vessels, are recommended. There should be three glasses at each level, placed 120°
apart. An anion resin sample valve should also be added as described above.
Mix and Storage Vessel
The regenerated or cleaned cation and anion resins are transferred to the storage vessel
where they are mixed, rinsed, and stored in readiness for transfer to an available
polisher vessel. The upper distributor and underdrain must be designed to provide
uniform flow during the rinse and to assure adequate mixing and complete resin
transfer. Design considerations for the other vessels are applicable to the mix and
storage vessel. Sight glass locations should be the same as for the anion vessel. A resin
sample valve should be added to the resin storage tank, as described above, for
sampling mixed resins.
Special Resin Regeneration Systems
To overcome the problems identified as affecting the performance of mixed bed resins
regenerated in plants of a conventional design, many proprietary designs and
procedures have evolved. Patent protection for some of these processes has now lapsed
but on others it is still current. Some of these proprietary processes are widely used and
many years of plant experience on different sites and under different conditions have
been accrued. Others have, for one reason or another, fallen from favor while new
processes are becoming available, although plant experience may be limited to a single
site. Potential users should confirm the current status of any proprietary technique that
they are considering using.
High Efficiency Separation Plants
As already discussed, the main problem concerning the regeneration of mixed bed ion
exchange resins is that of effective separation prior to regeneration of the component
resins. It is unlikely that any separation process will ever achieve complete separation
although it must be pointed out that some of the high efficiency separation techniques
1-51
are claiming cation in anion resin cross-contaminations as low as 0.02-0.04% by volume.

These techniques include the use of one or more of the following processes.
Interface Isolation. This process relies on conventional upflow separation carried out in
a vessel of conventional design but with transfer of the top anion resin layer being by
means of an outlet system set a finite height above the interface so that a layer of anion
resin remains. This layer, together with a underlying layer of cation resin, is then
removed to an isolation vessel via a second off-take set below the interface. Obviously,
this system requires control to be exercised over the height of the interface, that is, over
the resin volumes in each charge (Figure 1-25).
Bottom Transfer. This approach uses a conical bottom section in the separation vessel
from which the separated cation resin is removed, leaving the anion resin in the
separation vessel which can then serve as the anion resin regeneration vessel. With this
design, resin movement motivated by water pressure takes place smoothly, minimizing
disturbances at the interface. As the interface level descends into the conical section of
the separator, its cross-sectional area obviously decreases so that it finally enters the
transfer pipeline with a sharply defined separation. In this pipeline, the cation/anion
resin interface can be sensed by conductivity or other detectors. The transfer can then be
automatically stopped at the optimum time and the relatively small volume of anion
and cation resin in the transfer pipeline moved to an isolation vessel. At the end of the
regeneration process, this small volume of isolated resin is moved back to the empty
separation vessel to await the next charge. The efficiency of separation in this
proprietary separator design does not depend on the height in the vessel of the
separated resin interface; i.e., it does not depend on resin inventories, although, of
course, there are still compelling reasons to ensure that resin movements to and from
the regeneration vessels are as complete as possible (Figure 1-26).
1-52
Figure 1-25 Interface Isolation Regeneration System
1-53
Figure 1-26 Bottom Transfer Regeneration System
Resin Cleaning, Sizing, and Separation System. In this procedure, there is a steady feed
of the resins to be cleaned, sized, and separated through a pretreatment section which
removes crud and resin fines into a column of water flowing upwards in a specially
designed vessel. The flow of this water is carefully regulated so that anion resins are
swept upwards and cation resins sink. The anion resins overflow into the anion resin
settling section and onto an anion regeneration vessel while the cation resins are moved
to a cation regeneration vessel (Figure 1-27).
Ammonium Sulfate Density Separation. In this process, mixed resins are separated by
first converting the resins to the ammonium and sulfate form by treating the resins,
1-54
sequentially, with 1% and 3% ammonium sulfate and then separating them by using a
high density solution (30%) of ammonium sulfate. This resin separation technique
depends solely on the density of the beads and is unaffected by particle size. It therefore
differs from most other separation processes which essentially depends upon the
terminal falling velocity of the resin beads in water and hence on particle size as well as
density. Note that the resins are fully converted to the ammonium and sulfate forms,
which advantageously displaces sodium and chloride from these resins. The separated
resins are then converted to H+ and OH- forms by conventional regeneration
techniques (Figure 1-28).
Secondary Separation Techniques. As already discusses, even the best mixed bed
separation processes are not perfect and some cation resin will contaminate the
separated anion resin. The technique of secondary separation has been introduced by
one manufacturer and is routinely used in conjunction with the bottom transfer process
described above. The separated anion resin is regenerated in the normal way and then
subjected to a second separation backwash stage. Cross-contaminating cation resin will
now be fully in the sodium form and its beads will have a higher density and show
higher terminal falling velocities, thus improving their separability. The use of this
second stage separation process results in cation in anion resin cross-contamination of
less than 0.07% and often as low as 0.05%. Note that the separation of cation resin
“fines” is not improved.
Caustic Floatation Regeneration Process. Another well-known proprietary separation

improvement technique is again aimed at reducing the cation in anion resin cross-
contamination. In this process, the separated anion resin, together with a portion of the
mixed resins at the cation anion interface, is treated with a strong solution of sodium
hydroxide (approximately 16%) in which the cross-contaminating cation resin sinks,
facilitating its removal, and the anion resin floats. The sodium hydroxide solution also
acts as the anion resin regenerant. The recovered cation resin can be transferred to the
cation regeneration vessel to await the next batch of resin to be regenerated. (Figure 1-
29).
1-55
Figure 1-27 Resin Cleaning, Sizing, and Separation System
1-56
Figure 1-28 Ammonium Sulfate Density Separation System
1-57
Figure 1-29 Caustic Flotation Regeneration Process
Post Regeneration Resin Purification Technologies
Most post regeneration purification processes for condensate polishing are aimed at
reducing the in-service leakage of sodium that occurs because of cross-contamination.
As already described, any cation resin that becomes entrained in anion resin as a result
of less than perfect separation will be converted to the sodium form in the subsequent
regeneration process and will leak sodium when the resins enter service. Proprietary
techniques developed to alleviate this problem include the following processes.
1-58
Ammonia Wash of the Regenerated Anion Resin. A dilute solution of ammonia (0.5%) is
circulated through the regenerated anion resin for 3 to 10 hours to convert the sodium
form cation resin present in the anion resin to the ammonium form. The ammonia
solution is recycled through the cation regeneration vessel which contains the separated
cation resin to reduce the levels of sodium in the ammonia being circulated. The cation
resin is regenerated in the normal way after the ammonia recycle step is completed.
(Figure 1-30)
Lime Wash. The separated anion resin component is rinsed with a solution of calcium
hydroxide again with the aim of displacing sodium from any cross-contaminating
cation resin. Because of the relative selectivities of cation, sodium, and ammonia, the
calcium will displace the sodium, but will not be displaced later by ammonia.
Resin on Resin. The remixing of regenerated anion resin with the unregenerated cation
resin is a technique termed “Resin on Resin.” After the mixed resins are allowed to
stand in contact for a period of time, say a few hours, the mixed resins are reseparated.
The cation resin acts to remove any sodium hydroxide regenerant residuals from the
anion resin. More importantly, it alleviates the effect of less than perfect separations and
the consequent conversion of some cation resin to the sodium form and in-service
leakage of sodium. The mechanisms responsible for the proven improvements are still a
matter for debate, but theories include the following:
(a) The sodium on the small volume of cation resin which has been converted to 100%
sodium form from cross-contamination (imperfect separation) equilibrates over the
whole cation resin charge so that on reseparation any cation resin remaining in the
anion resin will have a considerably reduced sodium content. This equilibration
mechanism does not depend on particle size and, it is argued that smaller resins
beads will lose sodium more rapidly, due to equilibration, than larger beads.
1-59
Figure 1-30 Ammonia Wash Regeneration Procedure
(b) The sodium form cation resin beads have a higher density and hence higher
terminal settling velocities than H+ form beads so that on reseparation they will,
assuming that they are of normal particle size, have a greater probability of
separating into the cation resin layer. Some cation resin again will remain to
contaminate the anion resin. However, this will have a low sodium content and will
continue to have low sodium content because the anion resin has already been
regenerated.
(c) Since all the cation resin beads (excluding cation resin fines) have approximately the
same chance of being separated or being in the small number that remain to cross-
1-60
contaminate the anion resin, the majority of the sodium form cation resin beads will
remain with the separated cation resin during the reseparation that follows
remixing. Cation resin beads remaining to contaminate the anion resin will contain a
small number of sodium form beads and as the anion resin has been regenerated, it
will not pickup more sodium.
This approach is now in routine use at a small but growing number of power stations.
Its effectiveness is shown by experience at fossil fired stations and at PWRs. It has been
extended in a recent proprietary process to “Resin on Resin” purification of acid
regenerant residuals from cation resins in addition to its established use for reducing
sodium contamination of anion resins36.
Inert Resin
Inert resins have been used to improve the separation of condensate polishing and
other mixed beds and are now offered by all the major ion exchange manufacturers. The
resins have a density and particle size such that, at the separation state, the inert resins
form an intermediate layer between the cation resin and the anion resin. This
intermediate layer minimizes cross-contamination, both in the older design single
vessel regeneration systems and also in conventional regeneration systems (as shown
on Figure 1-31) where the top layer of anion resin is sluiced to the anion regeneration
vessel. The system was first used where in situ regeneration was performed. This
station had experienced sodium leakages to about 0.5 ppb. The introduction of inert
resins reduced this sodium leakage to about 0.1 ppb. Inert resin have been successful at
other power stations although some have reported difficulties with oil fouling and inert
resin loss. Thus, inert resins seem to offer a benefit in certain situations and potential
users are advised to study the experiences published in the literature. It seem probable
that inert resins will continue to find an application in special situations but improved
condensate polisher regeneration system designs offer more promise for improving
resin separation.
1-61
Figure 1-31 Regeneration with Inert Resin
Uniform Particle Resins
Most major manufacturers of ion exchange resins now offer “uniform particle size
resins” for condensate polishing and other applications. Conventional manufacturing
procedures depend upon production of cross-linked polystyrene polymer beads by
suspension polymerization techniques in stirred reaction vessels. The beads produced
by this batch process have a particle size distribution which approximately fits a
“Gaussian” normal distribution; i.e., the bead sizes when plotted against bead numbers
give the well known bell shaped curve. The mean size of the beads is controlled by
reactor conditions with the introduction of functional ion exchange groups being a
separate operation. For condensate polishing applications, resin produced in this way
1-62
are usually sieved to remove the very fine and oversized beads to meet user
specifications.
Improved manufacturing techniques have allowed the production of resins with a very
narrow particle size spread. The techniques involved have not been published, although
one manufacturer describes it as “jetting,” in that the raw materials are forced through
nozzles at high velocities with the result that uniform and controlled particle size beads
are formed. It is claimed that the use of such resins offer benefits such as lower pressure
drops, faster rinse-down times, better separation, and improved regeneration
characteristics. These claimed benefits are very useful for condensate polishing because
improved separation leads to better polished water quality.
Contractor Regeneration
A recent option to owning the regeneration equipment is the use of an offsite

regeneration contractors. This option involves transferring resin for cleaning or
regeneration to the contractor’s regeneration facilities. The contractor provides freshly
regenerated resins for use in the service vessels. This option is described more fully in
Appendix E.
Regenerant Reuse
Because much of the regenerant which is used in regeneration of condensate polishing

resins is not consumed, some of the regenerant can be reused. Typical reuse consists of
capturing the last part of a regeneration solution and reusing this captured regenerant
as the first part of the next regeneration. This subject is described further in Chapter 4.
BWR Throwaway Resin
Essentially, all BWR plants in the United States replace rather than regenerate depleted
condensate polisher beds. This minimizes the amount of radwaste generated, compared
to regeneration.
The second major function of BWR condensate polishers is filtration of corrosion

products transported by condensate. Eventually the resin must be cleaned to reduce
differential pressure or corrosion produced leakage. Cleaning frequency is plant-
specific and generally is time-based. Cleaning normally is performed on intervals
varying from two weeks to two months.
Cross-contamination
Normal operation of a conventional regeneration system generally yields resin cross-

contamination values of 2 to 5% volume cation resin in anion resin and 5 to 10% volume
1-63
anion resin in cation resin after separation and transfer of the anion layer18. However, as
discussed above, system modifications undertaken by operators and customization of
separation procedures can significantly reduce these cross-contamination levels30.
Utilization of the resin cleaning and sizing system can reduce resin cross-contamination
37
to the 1 to 2% range for both phases of separated resins . The bottom transfer system
can achieve cross-contamination levels of <0.1% cation in anion resin and <0.5% anion
in cation resin18. The use of inert resin together with control over resin bead size can
reduce cation resin contamination of the anion resin of 0.2 to 2% depending on the care
with which the separations are performed38. However, concentrations of anion resin in
the cation resin may be as high as 5%39.
Powdered Resin Filter Demineralizers
As shown on Figure 1-2, a powdered resin precoat system consists of two sub-systems,
the polisher vessels with filter elements (septa), and the precoat system. In the filter
demineralizer approach a thin coating of about 0.25 inch (0.6 cm) results from the
application of approximately 0.2 lb/ft2 (0.1 g/cm2) of precoat material. The precoat is
applied as a slurry of the powdered resin mixture which is prepared in the resin slurry
tank. The resin slurry is pumped through the polisher vessels and collected on the
exterior of the tubular filter septa to form a porous precoat. The septa can be
constructed of wire mesh, porous metal, a fiber matrix or wound fibers.
As particulate and ionic contaminants from treated condensate are removed by the
precoat, the resin becomes physically and/or chemically exhausted. Exhausted precoat
is removed from the filter septa by a combined air and water “backwash.” After
backwash is complete, the filter demineralizer septa are ready for precoating with a
slurry of new resin or resin/fiber mixture. The waste precoat is discarded.
Filter Demineralizer System Design
Polisher Vessel Design. Two types of filter demineralizer vessels are used in U.S. plants,
a top tubesheet design and a bottom tubesheet design. The top tubesheet design is
shown on Figure 1-3241. A drilled tubesheet with the septa inserted in the holes
separates the upper outlet chamber from the lower chamber containing the filter
elements. During operation, condensate enters the vessel lower chamber, flows through
the precoat on the outside of the septa, up the center of the septa to the upper chamber
and exits the vessel through the upper chamber. The bottom tubesheet design is shown
in Figure 1-3341. Again, there are upper and lower chambers in the vessel separated by a
tubesheet. The larger upper chamber contains the septa and the lower chamber receives
the treated water. Fittings are welded to the tubesheet to allow removal of the septa and
to provide for a seal when the septa are in place.
1-64
Figure 1-32 Top Tubesheet Polisher Vessel (Source: Reference 41)
Flow Distribution. Many precoat filter vessels in the field have flow distribution
problems. The upper tubesheet vessels have high velocity at the bottom of the filter
septa, which may cause precoat scouring. In the lower tubesheet vessel design, linear
velocity at the upper end of the septa may be one tenth of the values at the lower end.
These flow variations can wash precoat off the septa and lead to poor resin distribution
during precoating.
To improve flow distribution in upper tubesheet vessels, equipment suppliers have

developed screen and/or perforated plate arrangements which can be attached to the
existing support grid hardware. Similarly, a distribution or draft tube can be installed in
1-65
the bottom tubesheet vessel46, 47. As shown on Figure 1-34, the draft tube will improve
flow46, 47 distribution and precoat uniformity47. Septa suppliers also offer elements with
modified ends that serve as flow straighteners and improve precoat retention. The
modified septa may greatly improve flow distribution without vessel modifications.
Septa Design. The septa design must allow uniform precoating, complete removal of
exhausted precoat and long service life. Septa design also must prevent precoat leakage
during transient and normal operation since resin decomposition occurs at steam
generator and reactor vessel operating temperatures, and decomposition products can
promote corrosion. Septa design and construction advances made in recent years have
attempted to achieve the following41, 48.
1. Improved precoat distribution.
2. Minimal resin leakage.
3. Minimal fouling by particulate matter.
4. Improved backwashability.
5. Long maintenance free life.
The search for ways to improve septa performance and service life has led to the use of
different fiber types and metals, alternate winding patterns, and more effective
backwash methods. The most common septa media are a polymer media consisting of a
continuously wound yarn, stainless steel mesh, porous metal membranes, and fiber
matrix absolute rated depth filters. These septa are available for upper and lower
tubesheet vessels.
1-66
Figure 1-33 Bottom Tubesheet Polisher Vessel (Source: Reference 41)
1-67
Figure 1-34 Bottom Tubesheet Vessel Flow Distribution

The yarn wound elements have been used successfully in both types of filter
demineralizer vessels. Porous metal septa initially performed well but fouling gradually
reduces run lengths necessitating septa cleaning. The cleaning frequency depends on
backwash precoat operating approaches, area flow rate, and individual plant process
parameters. Currently, available porous metal septa cannot be cost justified unless they
are chemically cleaned. Cleaning frequency is plant-specific.
The fiber matrix filter element is an annular mat of synthetic (primarily polypropylene)
fibers ranging from 0.125 to 0.44 inch (0.32 to 1.1 cm) in thickness. The filter pore size
1-68
rating is controlled by varying the fiber diameter. Filters with pore sizes as fine as 0.5
µm are available. The fiber matrix filters are depth filters with high dirt holding
capacity.
Sight Glasses. Sight glasses for viewing the lower end of the septa and locations near
the upper end of the septa are a desirable feature. Identification of poor precoats or
precoat wash off during operation can permit operational changes or promote design
changes which can lengthen septa life and improve polisher performance.
Precoat cracking also can occur during routine operation, allowing leakage of dissolved
solids and septa fouling. After a cracked precoat is observed, timely application of a
new precoat or utilization of body feed will improve overall operation.
Precoat System. The two most common methods of precoating are “Closed-Loop
Recirculation” (Figure 1-35) and “Open-Loop Recirculation with Eductor” (Figure 1-36).
The closed-loop system generally is associated with the bottom tubesheet vessels, and
the open-look system with the top tubesheet vessels. The slurry tank must be sized to
contain sufficient precoat to handle the maximum dosage for one polisher vessel. The
initial concentration in the slurry tank should be 4 to 8% on a dry weight basis. Dilution
of the slurry transferred to the filter vessel is accomplished by the recycle, shown on
Figure 1-35, and the eductor transfer, as shown on Figure 1-36. The flow rates should be
adjusted to a vessel feed slurry concentration of <0.1% on a dry weight basis.
The precoat slurry flow rate to the service vessel should be 1 to 2 gpm/ft2 (40 to 80
L/m2-min).The eductor size and motive water pressure control the resin slurry
introduction rate for the open-loop system.
1-69
Figure 1-35 Closed Loop Precoat System
1-70
Figure 1-36 Open-Loop Recirculation with Eductor Precoat System
A covered tank with an agitator of adequate size (to ensure complete suspension of the
filter media) and with small doors for addition of resin help minimize contamination of
the precoat. Demineralized water or condensate must be used for slurry makeup. The
slurry should be prepared immediately before precoating and should not be allowed to
stand in the mixing tank for an extended time before precoat application. Agitators
should not draw air into the slurry while they are in operation. Exposure of the slurry
to air should be minimized since conversion of the anion resin to the carbonate form
will degrade performance.
1-71
Body Feed. When body feed is employed, the vessel is placed in service after a base
precoat is applied (50 to 70% of the normal precoat loading). At some time in the service
cycle, a body feed system (separate from the precoating equipment) is used to introduce
additional precoat material directly into the condensate polisher inlet. The new resin
overlay improves precoat uniformity, decreases the rate of pressure drop increase, and
increases run lengths.
A typical body feed system is shown on Figure 1-37. A mixture of powdered resin and
fiber usually is prepared in the body feed mixing tank. The mixture is maintained under
a nitrogen atmosphere to prevent exhaustion of the anion resin by carbon dioxide.
Injection of the slurry into the inlet of each service vessel is preferred to a single
injection point in the common condensate inlet header. The multiple injection inlet
design allows addition of a known volume of body feed mixture into each vessel and
does not allow the mixture to take the path of least resistance. The body feed system
controller should allow programming the mixture addition to one step, multiple step,
or continuous incremental additions.
Body feed can enhance system performance and extend run lengths limited by either
both pressure drop and dissolved impurities. Precoat material added as body feed
provides a new surface which reduces pressure differential buildup and also corrects
for nonuniform or cracked precoats with a resulting increase in run length. The
technique has been particularly useful for increasing BWR filter demineralizer run
lengths and reducing radwaste disposal costs.
Holding Pumps. The precoat will not remain on the septa unless there is flow through
the precoat causing sufficient pressure drop to hold it in place. After precoating, a
polisher vessel may be held in standby until needed. The holding pump recirculates
water through the septa during standby to keep the precoat in place. The holding
pumps must provide sufficient flow to retain the resin precoat on the septa, i.e., >0.5
2 2 2 2
gpm/ft (20 L/m -min) for metal septa and >0.1 gpm/ft (4 L/m -min) for fiber-wound
septa.
1-72
Figure 1-37 Condensate Filter Demineralizer Body Feed System
Powdered Resin Filter Demineralizer Operation
Hydraulic Flux Rate. Many systems were designed for an area flow rate of 4.0 to 4.5
gpm/ft2 (163 to 183 L/m2-min). Operating experience has shown that lower flow rates
allow higher corrosion product loadings and longer service cycles. Operation at high
flow rate compresses the partially loaded precoat, leading to an abrupt rise in
differential pressure. Operation with all vessels in service is recommended to reduce the
flow rate per unit area. More recent designs have used hydraulic loadings at around 3.0
gpm/ft2 (122 L/m2-min). Operation at even lower hydraulic flux rates are used for other
1-73
powdered resin applications, primarily in nuclear units. Septa life also is extended by
operation at lower flow rates.
Termination of Service Run. A vessel should be removed from service at a selected

maximum differential pressure, typically 25 psi or when the effluent water quality is
insufficient to meet water chemistry specifications, as given in Chapter 2.
PWR stations with recirculating steam generators (RSG) have more difficulty meeting
required impurity levels than BWRs since PWR units operate at elevated pH; i.e., they
are precoated with ammonium (or other amine) form cation resin or the cation resin is
converted to ammonium (or other amine) form in service. The same is true relative to
PWRs with once-through steam generator (OSTG) even though in this case feedwater
impurity concentration limits are much higher than for RSG units.
Operation with ammonium (or other amine) form cation resin requires very low resin
sodium contamination levels to maintain the required outlet sodium concentration.
Estimated sodium leakage as a function of cation resin sodium contamination is shown
on Figure 1-38. This estimate is based on selectivity coefficients for 10% cross-linked
cation resin. As shown, the ammonium form cation resin precoat must contain less than
0.027% sodium rites at pH 9.4 to maintain a sodium effluent concentration of 0.2 ppb.
Since these contamination levels are near that of new resin, maintaining the required
effluent quality for RSG PWRs is unlikely during periods of even minor condenser
cooling water in-leakage. For fossil units and once-through PWRs, with effluent quality
limits an order of magnitude higher, some limited capacity for coping with condenser
cooling water in-leakage is provided.
The effects of cation to anion resin weight ratio and inlet concentration on sodium and
chloride removal by hydrogen form cation and hydroxide form anion resins are
40
illustrated on Figures 1-39 and 1-40 . These laboratory results were obtained with the
resin precoated on a horizontal flat plate to assure uniform precoat depth and flow
distribution. As shown, the resin ratio had little impact on resin performance when it
was evaluated at fixed resin exhaustion to the contaminant (NaCl). Since cation resin is
also exhausted by ammonia, the removal of sodium and chloride becomes less efficient
at lower contaminant concentrations.
1-74
Figure 1-38 Equilibrium Sodium Leakage from Ammonium and Hydrogen from Cation
Resin
1-75
Figure 1-39 Precoat Chloride Removal Efficiency (Source: Reference 40)
1-76
Figure 1-40 Precoat Sodium Removal Efficiency (Source: Reference 40)
The predicted sodium removal efficiency as a function of precoat operating time is

shown on Figure 1-41, based on Figure 1-38 data. The calculation is for a
hydrogen/hydroxide precoat of 2 to 1 resin weight ratio, 4.0 gpm/ft2 (40.7 L/m2-min),
0.2 lb/ft 2 (0.1 g/cm2) resin loading and an inlet sodium chloride concentration of 300
ppb. At elevated pH, the sodium removal efficiency rapidly decreases as the cation
resin hydrogen capacity is exhausted by sodium and ammonium ions. The precoat has
very limited ion exchange capability in high pH applications and cannot be depended
on to maintain water quality during significant condenser in-leakage. Although sodium
removal efficiency at BWR units (hydrogen form resin at neutral pH) is considerably
better, high condensate impurity concentration also will rapidly exhaust the precoat.
1-77
Precoat Removal. Recommended backwashing methods vary with the type of vessel.
For bottom tubesheet vessels, the air surge backwash method should be used41. A small
backwash water flow keeps the lower plenum filled. When the vessel was drained, a
surge of air enters the lower plenum and drives the water in the plenum through the
septa at high velocity. Three such surges are used with the drain valve closed and the
filter chamber partially filled. Approximately five surges generally are used with the
filter chamber drained. With a top tubesheet vessel, an air bump method should be
used41. A portion of the water in the top effluent plenum is drained off, and the gas
space is pressurized with air. Then the drain valve at the bottom of the filter vessel is
opened quickly, and air and water are forced through the septa to remove the precoat.
The vessel can be refilled and backwashed as many times as needed to remove the
precoat.
Insufficient cleaning of filter septa during backwashing leads to reduced run lengths
and filter element life. If all of the powdered resin and filtered particulates are not
removed from the septa and flushed out of the vessel during the backwash operation,
progressive filter septa fouling is likely. Resin and impurities remaining on the element
and in the vessel after backwashing gradually become imbedded, which results in a
continued increase in septa fouling and reduced run lengths. Such fouling may also
result from poor quality precoating or precoat erosion due to the poor flow/precoat
distribution. Elimination of this source of fouling by using high backwash flows of air
and water will extend filter element life. Use of an air surge backwash procedure for
lower tubesheet vessels and air bump procedure for top tubesheet vessels generally
provides reasonable septa cleaning.
Vessel Precoating. Two different systems for precoat application are used: “closed-loop
recirculation” and “open-loop recirculation with eductor.” Although the precoating
procedure must be tailored for individual plant conditions, some general considerations
are given in Chapter 4. Precoat resin suppliers can provide assistance and instruction on
proper precoating of available formulations.
1-78
Figure 1-41 Hydrogen Form Precoat Sodium Removal Efficiency
The floc (or resin clumps) that forms when cation and anion resins are mixed is the key
to the use of powdered ion exchange resin. The floc is an agglomerate of cation and
anion resin particles (with fibers when used) whose size must be controlled to obtain a
uniform precoat on the septa. The precoat is affected by the following parameters which
can be varied as needed.
1. Dilution in the precoat tank.
2. Agitation and mixing time.
3. Clumping and declumping.
1-79
4. Precoat rate.
5. De-flocculating agents (Solution A).
Flocculation is measured by the settled volume of the precoat under standardized

conditions. The usual measure is the percent of initial slurry volume after settling for 15
minutes.
100 V (resin settled volume after 15 min)

(eq. 5)
V0 (Total volume of water plus resin),
which is abbreviated V/V. In most cases, the desirable V/V for 4% weight resin slurry
is between 25 and 60%. Above 60%, the floc is too heavy to precoat evenly; below 25%,
the precoat will be tight and the precoat will result in a high-pressure drop. Flocculation
primarily is a function of resin particle size and cation to anion resin ratio, but the floc
size can be varied by the use of declumping agents such as polyacrylic acid.
A sample of the resin slurry should be tested to verify that settling characteristics and
clump size are consistent with manufacturer’s recommendations. Samples from the
precoat pump discharge during precoating also should be taken occasionally during
precoating to determine resin slurry concentration.
Clarity of the supernatant water above the settled resin is also an important factor. It is
important to minimize supernatant turbidity to avoid high-pressure drop with a
42
subsequent decrease in service run length and possible plugging of filter elements .
Properly sized and flocculated fiber allows the use of extremely fine resins without
high-pressure drop, resin bleed-through, or element fouling. Flocculated fiber also
permits a user to dispense with the cation resin, anion resin, or both resins, as desired,
when filtration is the only goal of condensate treatment.
After the floc is prepared in the precoat mixing tank, it must be transferred to the
process vessel to form a uniform precoat on the filter elements. Uniform thickness
precoats provide the best filtration and ion exchange performance as well as longer run
lengths. A low slurry concentration (400 to 700 ppm) and long precoating time (40 to 60
minutes) appear to provide a more uniform precoat.
Powdered resin systems have had problems with resin bleed-through, precoat cracking,
and precoat erosion. Resin fiber mixtures were introduced to minimize such problems.
Resin bleed has been reduced by improved septa designs. Fiber overlays or body feed
can minimize the effects of precoat cracking resulting from shrinkage of the precoat
during use. Precoat erosion is the result of poor flow distribution in the process vessel.
1-80
Flow straighteners and draft tubes are available that are claimed to mitigate precoat
erosion43, 44.
Fossil and PWR units add ammonia or other amines to condensate to control feedwater
pH, generally at 8.8 to 9.6. Since the precoats have minimal ion exchange capacity and
hydrogen form cation resin is quickly converted to the ammonium form, ammonium
form cation resin and hydroxide form anion resin precoats are normally used.
Precoating with ammonium form resins also eliminates pH changes at the beginning of
the service cycle. Cation rich precoats (3 to 1 weight ratio) generally are used for normal
operation when the main purpose is corrosion product filtration.
Filter element precoat loadings for fossil and PWR units of 0.2 to 0.3 lb/ft2 (0.1 to 0.15
g/cm2) are recommended. Fibers generally are not used in the precoats (when a mixed
bed polisher is not used downstream) because they are a potential source of sodium
contamination which is not ion exchanged efficiently by ammonium form resin. In
addition, the fibers decrease the overall ion exchange capacity of the precoat. Maximum
ion exchange capacity is desirable where run lengths are limited by ionic leakage.
Hydrogen form cation resin and hydroxide form anion resin are used in BWR
powdered resin systems. The most common cation to anion weight ratio is 1 to 1, but
other ratios are sometimes used. The precoat loading normally is 0.2 to 0.3 lb/ft2 (0.1 to
0.15 g/cm2), which gives a precoat thickness of 1/4 to 1/2 inch (0.6 to 1.3 cm).
At normal operating conditions, BWR run lengths generally are limited by differential
pressure. Although many of the systems were originally designed for filter element
flow rates of approximately 4 gpm/ft2 (163 L/m2-min), experience has shown that
higher precoat corrosion product loadings are possible if the flow rate is reduced. A
limited reduction in the hydraulic flux rate can be achieved by operation with all
polisher vessels in service, i.e., no vessel is standby.
Most BWRs and fossil units use resin and fiber mixtures or fiber overlays to improve
run lengths to a pressure differential endpoint. A particular problem for plants with
copper alloy condensers is soluble copper removal. For these plants, copper leakage
through the polisher often limits precoat run lengths. Body feed increases run lengths to
the copper leakage and/or pressure drop endpoint45, 46.
Septa Replacement. Periodically, resin septa need to be replaced. Typical indications are
increasing pressure drop values across freshly precoated elements, excessive resin
leakage, and occasionally catastrophic failure.
When septa replacement is required, the replacement septa should be carefully

considered because of the several options available and because of the significant
development which is occurring in this area. Following replacement, the vessels should
be tested for resin leakage before the system is returned to service.
1-81
Septa Cleaning. Septa can be cleaned both internally and externally. External cleaning
can be done using ultrasonic baths. External cleaning risks the possible damage of septa
by handling. Internal cleaning can be done using weak acids, ethylene diamine tetra
acetic acid (EDTA), surfactants, caustic soda (NaOH), etc. Prior to any in-plant cleaning,
compatibility of cleaning agents should be checked with the septa manufacturer and
also tested in the laboratory49.
Resin Strainers. If filter septa fail or become loose during the service cycle, downstream
resin strainer pressure drop will increase rapidly as precoat material is collected on the
strainer screen. Pressure drop across a clean strainer, which generally is designed to
operate at approximately 400 gpm/ft2, is about 5 psi. The recommended high-pressure
differential alarm setting is approximately 15 psi.
Screens of 100 to 150 mesh will remove any particles, including dirt and metal oxides,
which are larger than 100 to 150 microns. It is normal to experience increased resin trap
differential pressure during initial service following extended outages or performance
of any type of maintenance work on the interior of the vessels. Debris left in the vessels
after maintenance or after corrosion products have formed during an outage is flushed
out of the vessel into the resin strainer when the vessel is placed back in service.
References
1. Dowex: Ion Exchange. Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan, 1964.
2. R. Kunin. “Two Decades of Macroreticular Ion Exchange Resins.” Amber Hi-Lites

No. 161, Rohm and Haas Company. Spring 1979.
3. R. Hetherington and W. Fries. “Cation Exchange Resin Minimizes Organic Fouling.”

Power. September 1996.
4. C. C. Scheerer. “How Dowex Monosphere™ Resins Affect Deep Bed Polisher

Filtration and Operation Performance,” EPRI Condensate Polisher Workshop,
Richmond, VA (October 1985).
5. H. Kusano, et al. “Ion Exchange Resins and Ion Exchange Systems of Nuclear Power
Plants in Japan,” EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Chicago, IL (May 1987).
6. S. G. Sawochka, et al. “Corrosion-Product Transport in PWR Secondary Systems.”

EPRI, December 1981. (NP-2149).
7. I. Inami, et al. “Mechanism of Crud Removal by Deep Bed Resins.” Proc,

International, Water Conference., 50, pp. 552-557.
8. E. Salem, et al. “Hope Creek Deep Bed Filtration Pilot Testing,” EPRI Particulates
Filtration Conference, Philadelphia, PA (September 1991).
9. F. M. Cutler and D. J. Casar. “Effectiveness of Iron Removal by Deep Bed Polishers,”

EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Scottsdale, AZ (June 1991).
1-82
10. O. Amano, et al. “Improvement of Iron Crud Removal Efficiency at Powdered Resin
Type Condensate Pre-Filter,” JAIF International Conference on Water Chem., Tokyo
(April 1988).
11. C. G. Diehl. “Analysis of Utility Industry Powdered Resin Survey - January 18,
1990,” EPRI Condensate Polisher Workshop, Dallas, TX (January 1990).
12. E. Salem and M. J. O’Brien, “Powdered Resin Equipment - Design Improvements,”

EPRI Particulates Filtration Conference, Philadelphia, PA (September 1991).
13. F. X. McGarvey. “Efficient Operation of Strongly Basic Anion Exchangers Part I -

High Temperature Effects,” 16th Annual Liberty Bell Corrosion Course,
Philadelphia, PA (September 11-13, 1978).
14. J. C. Bates. “Sodium-Amine Ion Exchange Selectivity Studies and Their

Applications,” CEGB Amine Workshop, Bristol, England (April 1986).
15. J. R. Emmett and P. M. Grainger. “Ion Exchange Mechanism in Condensate

Polishing.” Proc. International Water Conference, 40, pp. 81-88 (1979).
16. C. A. Bevan, et al. “Evaluating Deep Bed Condensate Polisher Performance for
PWRs Using Morpholine,” EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Little Rock, AR
(May 1989).
17. N. J. Ray, et al. “Kinetic Performance of Anion Exchange Resins.” Proc. International
Water Conference, 42, pp. 307-313 (1981).
18. M. A. Sadler, et al. “Condensate Polishers for Brackish Water Cooled PWRs.”
Electric Power Research Institute, July 1986. NP-4550.
19. E. Salem. “A Study of the Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Ion Exchange
Media Used in Trace Contaminant Removal.” Proc. American Power Conference, 31,
pp. 669-684 (1969).
20. NWT Corporation data, unpublished.
21. M. J. O’Brien and E. Salem. “Deep Bed Condensate Polishing Separation Technology
Requirements for Operation in the Amine Cycle,” EPRI Condensate Polishing
Workshop, Scottsdale, AZ (June 1991).
22. S.K. Fisher and G. Otten. “Are All Type I Strong Base Anion Resins Chemically
Equal in their Ability to Polish Condensate?” Proc. International Water Conference,
50, pp. 254-260 (1989).
23. R. M. Wheaton. “Hydroxide-Cycle Operation with Strongly Basic Anion Exchange

Resins.” Chem. Eng. Progress Symposium, 50 p. 43 (1954).
24. J. R. Emmett. “Condensate Polishing: A New Approach,” presented at British

Nuclear Energy Society, Bournemouth, England (October 1977).
25. R. R. Harries and N. J. Ray. “Acid Leakage from Mixed Beds.” Effluent and Water
Treatment Journal 18, pp. 487-495 (1978).
1-83
26. ABRO, U. S. Patents 3455819 and 3583908.
27. General Electric Co., “Product Specification for Ultrasonic Resin Cleaner, Model 4.”
September 1979.
28. R. H. Perry and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, Fifth Edition, pp. 5-61
and 5-64, McGraw Hill, New York, 1973.
29. Dow Chemical Co., “Dowex Ion Exchange Engineering Manual.” T.D. Index 120.04
and 220.01. 1983.
30. L. E. Crone. “Optimization of Deep Bed Condensate Polishers in the Presence of

Ammoniated Feedwater,” EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Chicago, IL (May
1987).
31. D. P. Siegwarth. “Demineralizer Operation With Morpholine and Boric Acid.”

Electric Power Research Institute, July 1992. TR-100790.
32. J. C. Bates. “Morpholine Experience at Oldbury Power Station.” EPRI Condensate

Polishing Workshop, Little Rock, AR (May 1989).
33. D. P. Siegwarth, et al. “A Review of Condensate Demineralizer Regeneration

Procedures” Electric Power Research Institute, April 1983. NP-2975.
34. L. E. Crone. “Operating Experiences at Millstone 2 with Full Flow Condensate

Polishing.” EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Scottsdale, AZ (June 1991).
35. D. Keeling and S. Fisher. Paper IWC-4-66, Proc International Water Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA (1994).
36. M. A. Sadler, H. R. Bolton. “PPQ Water - The Next Challenge,” Proc. International
Water Conference, 3, pp. 16-25, Pittsburgh, PA (October 1992).
37. A. Stengel and R. C. Pillow. “Condensate Polishing Operating Experience 1987 -

1990, Surry Power Station.” EPRI Amine Workshop, Tampa, FL (September 1990).
38. C. A. Bevan, et al. “Evaluating Deep Bed Condensate Polisher Performance for
PWRs Using Morpholine,” EPRI Condensate Polishing Conference (June 1989).
39. M. A. Sadler and J. C. Bates. “Experiences with Triple Resin Condensate Polishing
System at Fawley Power Station,” EPRI, Miami, FL (December 1981).
40. W. L. Pearl and S. G. Sawochka. “PWR Secondary Water Chemistry Study,

Thirteenth Progress Report (July through September 1978),” NWT Corporation,
November 1978 (NWT 116-13)
41. D. J. Butterworth and J. F. Longo. “Design and Performance of Retaining Elements

for Precoat Demineralizers,” EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Philadelphia,
PA (January 1988).
42. G. Fene. “Industrial Experience with Powdered Resin from an Ion Exchange
Manufacturer’s Point of View,” EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Philadelphia,
PA (January 1988).
1-84
43. A. K. Bhanot. “Flow Straightening Technology for Filter/Demineralizer Systems,”

EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Dallas, TX (January 1990).
44. K. Oikawa, et al. “Draft Tube Application in Powdered Resin Vessels,” EPRI
Condensate Polishing Workshop, Dallas, TX (January 1990).
45. H. C. Nix, et al. “Operational Experience with Continuously Feeding Resins and
Fibers to a BWR Polishing Filter/Demineralizer System,” JAIF International
Conference on Water Chemistry, Tokyo (April 1988).
46. E. Salem and M. J. O’Brien, “Powdered Resin Equipment-Design Improvements,”

EPRI Particulate Filtration Conference, Philadelphia, PA (September 1991).
47. R. Maeda and M. Nahamura. “Improvements of Condensate Precoat Filters Draft

Tubes and Low Cross Linked Resin,” EPRI Particulate Filtration Workshop,
Philadelphia, PA (September 1991).
48. B. Weissman. “Pall Septa Optimization Studies,” EPRI Condensate Polisher

Workshop, Philadelphia, PA (January 1988).
49. Paul Cohen. “The ASME Handbook on Water Technology for Thermal Power
Systems,” pp. 1204-1204, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York,
1992.
50. K. Tittle, et al. “Mixed Bed Performance in a Condensate Polishing Plant.” presented
at British Nuclear Energy Society, Bournemouth, England (October 1980).
51. K. Ishigure, et al. “Proc. BNES” Conf Water Chemistry 3, Bournemouth, U.K., 1983.
52. F. Nordmann and A. Rocher. “Comparison of Morpholine to Ammonia Treatment

for All Ferrous Systems,” EPRI Workshop, Tampa, Florida (September 25-27, 1990).
1-85
2
WATER CHEMISTRY IMPACTS
Overview
The previous chapter provided the basics of condensate polishing. This chapter helps
define the water quality goals for both nuclear and fossil plants and discusses how the
water quality improvements available from condensate polishing can benefit the cycle.
Also discussed in this chapter are the effluent quality limitations of various designs.
Fossil Stations
Initial fossil station water chemistry requirements were developed by EPRI and
distributed in CS-4629 entitled, Interim Consensus Guidelines on Fossil Plant Cycle
1
Chemistry. More specific and refined guidelines were developed which included: EPRI
TR-102285, Guidelines For Oxygenated Treatment for Fossil Plants;2 EPRI TR-103665,
Cycle Chemistry For Fossil Plants; Phosphate Treatment For Drum Units;3 EPRI TR-
104007 Sodium Hydroxide For Conditioning the Boiler Water of Drum-Type Boilers;4
EPRI TR-105041, Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All Volatile Treatment.21
The guideline for oxygenated treatment (OT) is applicable for once-through units and
drum units with condensate polishing. These guidelines are based upon successful
worldwide experience with application of oxygenated treatment. Initially, two U.S.
once-through units were converted to OT as a result of an EPRI demonstration project,
and many other units have since converted based on the EPRI guidelines. A
demonstration of OT for drum units has been completed. The additional Guidelines for
phosphate and sodium hydroxide treatment do not necessarily require condensate
polishing and were developed as a result of worldwide studies of boiler tube failures
using congruent phosphate and sodium hydroxide treatments. The AVT guidelines
suggests that polishing is an important part of minimizing contaminant ingress
necessary for successful AVT operation.
Process sample locations, as well as the rationale for the sample locations, and
chemistry guideline parameters and values, are discussed in these documents. Only a
brief discussion is presented here. All the guidelines provide water quality parameters
for normal operation as well as for excursions. Normal limits are given in Table 2-1 for
selected sampling locations for drum units were reheat, for a pressure of 2500 psi, and for
units using OT. Tables 2-2 provides similar water quality limits for once-through units.
2-1
Water Chemistry Impacts
The selected sample locations are steam, boiler water (for drum units), economizer inlet,
condensate polisher outlet, and condensate pump discharge. The steam sample is
selected because of the great importance of steam purity to overall cycle chemistry.
Cycle chemistry requirements for fossil plants for soluble species such as sodium,
chloride, sulfate, and silica are generally limited by turbine steam purity requirements.
It is also important to note that the steam purity requirements for drum and once-
through units are the same. This follows because the impact of soluble contaminants on
the turbine occurs in the low-pressure stages which are similar for turbines in either
once-through or drum-type units. Limitations for corrosion product concentrations are
shown in both tables. Drum water was selected to show the concentration effect of the
feedwater as well as the impact of drum chemistry on steam purity.
Combined condensate polisher effluent and condensate pump discharge samples show
the direct effect of condensate polishing. Table 2-1 shows limits for drum units, both for
AVT and for OT. The column for condensate pump discharge, for AVT, differentiates
between the requirements for units with condensate polishing and for units without
condensate polishing for both cation conductivity and sodium. This distinction reflects
the expectation that plants using polishing can tolerate a higher level of condensate
contamination than those without polishing. No similar distinction is shown in the
tables for oxygenated treatment for drum units because the use of oxygenated
treatment requires the use of condensate polishing. While the ability to operate in more
adverse circumstances is an important aspect of condensate polishing, it is important to
realize that a plant with a properly operated condensate polisher will produce better
quality feedwater than a plant without polishing, under the same conditions. The
overall result is less contaminant deposition in both the boiler and the turbine. This will
result in lower maintenance costs, improved reliability, and reduced forced outages.
Nuclear Stations
Nuclear stations operate at a boiler pressure of approximately 1000 psi. As a result,

cycle chemistry is generally governed by steam generator water quality requirements
rather than turbine steam purity considerations with the exception of those PWRs
which use once-through steam generators.
Nuclear power station water chemistry requirements are given in the “PWR Secondary
5 6
Water Chemistry Guidelines” and “BWR Normal Water Chemistry Guidelines.” Since
PWR once-through steam generator (OSTG), PWR recirculating steam generator (RSG),
and BWR stations have different chemistry requirements, feedwater quality
requirements vary with station type. Condensate polishers, when used, must be capable
of meeting these requirements.
2-2
Table 2-1
Cycle Chemistry Limits
2-3
Table 2-2
Once-Through Unit Cycle Chemistry Limits
2-4
PWR Recirculating Steam Generators
Impurities entering the steam generators are either deposited or are removed by the
blowdown or steam7. Steam-borne impurities are mostly recycled to the steam
generator via the moisture separator drains which are pumped forward with the feed-
water. Impurity ingress to the cycle generally is controlled by limiting condenser
inleakage and makeup water impurity transport. In some cases, chemical feed
contamination can also become a factor. When condensate polishers are employed, very
low effluent impurity concentration must be achieved continuously. Maximum
allowable concentrations of highly soluble ionic impurities (e.g., sodium and chloride)
in the condensate polisher effluent can be approximated at the steam generator
blowdown specification limit for normal operation by assuming minimal hideout in the
steam generators; i.e., the rate of impurity removal by steam generator blowdown is
equal to the rate of impurity transport by the polished condensate. Applicability of this
assumption varies from plant to plant.
Since about 70% of the feedwater flow generally comes from the condenser and the
blowdown flow rate is normally 1/4 to 1% of the feedwater flow rate, concentrations in
the polished condensate and steam generator blowdown can be related in the absence
of hideout as follows:
At 1/4% blowdown
CBD/CCDO = 280
At 1% blowdown
CBD/CCDO = 70
where CBD = Blowdown concentration, ppb,
CCDO = Polished condensate concentration, ppb.
To meet EPRI Action Level 1 guidelines for highly ionic species (Table 2-3), the
maximum allowable condensate polisher effluent sodium, chloride, and sulfate
concentrations in the absence of hideout in the steam generators can be calculated to be
0.07 and 0.3 ppb at 1/4% and 1% blowdown, respectively. Blowdown concentrations
can be maintained below the Action Level 1 values at higher polisher effluent
concentrations if steam generator hideout is significant.
In practice, PWR plant condensate polisher systems produce significantly lower

contaminant concentrations. In particular, steam generator blowdown sodium, chloride,
and sulfate concentrations of 1 to 4 ppb, which are now being achieved routinely,
2-5
correspond to condensate polisher effluent concentrations 5 to 20 times less than the

Table 2-3 values (assuming minimal hideout).
When the cation conductivity values of Table 2-3 are considered, it should be noted that
the target polisher effluent cation conductivity is exceeded when boric acid is added to
the steam generator as a corrosion inhibitor. In particular, boric acid breaks through the
condensate polisher before regeneration of the polisher bed is required to control
contaminant leakage and increases polisher effluent cation conductivity.
Feedwater iron and copper concentration limits (5 ppb and 1 ppb, respectively) also are
given in the PWR chemistry guidelines5. Plant data indicate that deep bed polisher
corrosion product removal efficiency should exceed 60%; powdered resin precoat filter
efficiency should exceed 90%. Since condensate iron concentrations normally are less
than 15 ppb, the maximum condensate polisher effluent iron concentration should be
approximately 6 ppb. It should be noted that iron corrosion product transport by the
pumped forward drains can be two to 10 times the polished condensate transport
values9.
Similarly, polisher effluent copper concentrations should be <0.5 for a 2 ppb polisher
inlet concentration. Feedwater copper concentrations are similar to polisher outlet
concentrations at units with all ferrous feedwater heaters but are significantly higher
than the polished condensate at units with copper alloy heaters.
2-6
Table 2-3
Maximum Allowable Impurity Level in Recirculating Steam Generator Polished
Condensate Calculated from EPRI Action Level 1 Blowdown Chemistry Guidelines5
Polished Polished
Condensatea Condensate
a
Impurity Steam Generator 1% Blowdown 1/4% Blowdown

Blowdownb
Sodium, ppb 20 0.29 0.07
Chloride, ppb 20 0.29 0.07
Sulfate, ppb 20 0.29 0.07
Cation Conductivity, µS/cm 0.8c 0.068c 0.058c
a
Based on 0% hideout in the steam generators.
b
EPRI Guideline values.
c
Considers only non-volatile highly ionized anionic contaminants.
PWR Once-Through Steam Generators
Once-through steam generators (OTSG) generate superheated steam and operate

without blowdown above approximately 15% power. Consequently, EPRI Chemistry
Guidelines focus on feedwater impurity concentrations. Feedwater impurities are either
deposited in the steam generator or transported out of the OTSG with the steam.
Generally, most feedwater-borne soluble impurities such as sodium, chloride, and
sulfate exit with the steam, whereas corrosion products such as iron and copper deposit
in the steam generators.
Impurities transported by the steam concentrate in the moisture separator drains.

Routing these drains to the feedwater via the pumped forward high-pressure drains
significantly increases feedwater impurity concentrations relative to those in the
polished condensate. If all the moisture separator drain flow is pumped forward,
feedwater dissolved impurity and corrosion product concentrations can be increased by
10
a factor of 5 to 20 above levels in the polished condensate .
Generally, United States OTSG plants return a significant fraction of the moisture
separator drains to the condenser to remove impurities from the cycle and reduce
2-7
feedwater concentrations. At one OTSG, high-temperature demineralization of a

fraction of the moisture separator drains flow is employed.
Soluble impurity concentrations in the polished condensate approximately equal

feedwater concentrations when the moisture separator drains are routed to the
condenser, as shown in Table 2-410. It should be noted that at the polisher effluent
maximum cation conductivity of 0.15 µS/cm/ significant concentrations of anionic
impurities could be present, i.e., 11 ppb chloride or 15 ppb sulfate.
OTSG units were built with all ferrous feedwater systems, although some plants have
90/10 copper/nickel tubed reheaters and copper alloy condensers. Feedwater copper
concentrations are about the same as those in the polisher effluent. Feedwater iron
concentrations may be four to five times polished condensate concentrations9 as a result
of forward drain pumping.
Table 2-4
Maximum Polished Condensate Impurity Levels in OTSG PWRs Based on EPRI
Guidelines5
Maximum Parameter Value
Impurity Feedwatera Polished Condensatec
Sodium, ppb 3 3
Chloride, ppb 5 5
Silica, ppb 10 10
Iron, ppb 5
Copper, ppb 1 1
Cation conductivity, µS/cmb 0.2 0.15
a
EPRI Guideline values.
b
Cation conductivity should be corrected for contribution of formate and acetate
with use of morpholine.
c
Moisture separator drains routed to condenser.
2-8
Justification for Condensate Polishing in PWRs
Ionic Transport. Maintaining low ionic impurity input rates to the steam generators is
accepted as a primary means of minimizing the likelihood and extent of RSG corrosion.
Since OTSG corrosion due to highly concentrated ionic contaminants is of less concern,
guideline values for feedwater impurity concentrations are based primarily on
minimizing corrosion at the Wilson line transition in the low-pressure turbine.
Allowable feedwater impurity concentrations in OTSG systems are significantly greatly
than in RSG systems because of steam generator design differences.
Ionic impurities normally enter the secondary cycle through the condenser, e.g., via
cooling water inleakage and makeup water. High condensate ionic contaminant
concentrations also can be experienced during plant startups. Well designed and
operated full-flow condensate polishers of the deep bed type normally will allow RSG
blowdown and OTSG feedwater ionic impurity concentration guidelines to be met
during periods of significant condenser leakage for a sufficient time to eliminate the
contaminant source. (However, deep bed condensate polishers also can be a source of
ionic impurities when operating with a tight condenser.) Powdered resin precoat filters
provide only minimal protection against ionic transport during condenser inleakage
events.
Corrosion Product Transport. Since concentrated solutions can develop within sludge
piles, under deposits, and in tube-to-tube support crevices, corrosion product transport
to PWR steam generators must be minimized. For example, laboratory studies have
shown that the sludge pile depth should be controlled to no more than 1 inch (2.54 cm)
for copper free sludge and no more than 1/2 inch (1.25 cm) with copper-rich sludge in
RSGs to minimize the formation of concentrated solutions of bulk water impurities in
the sludge. Since the peak steam generator sludge depth can be three times the average,
RSG average sludge pile depths ideally should not exceed 0.4 cm (1/6 inch) for copper-
containing sludge and 0.8 cm (1/3 inch) for copper-free sludge. To remain below these
sludge depths, it is necessary to minimize feedwater corrosion product transport and, in
most cases, to sludge lance each refueling outage.
Steam generator corrosion minimization is not the only goal of corrosion product
transport minimization. In particular, some PWRs with RSGs have experienced
decreases over time in steam generator steam pressure. Tube fouling with corrosion
products is believed to be the cause of this problem. In OTSGs, corrosion product
deposition at upper support plate intersections has led to an inability to control water
level and has limited power production at several plants. Chemical cleaning has been
performed to address this problem.
Reduction of corrosion product transport is an important condensate polisher function

since a major fraction of the feedwater iron and copper transport is contributed by the
2-9
condensate9. These corrosion products result from corrosion of the low-pressure heater
shells, condenser shell, baffling and tubing, and low-pressure steam extraction piping.
The impact of condensate polishing on feedwater corrosion product transport is

dependent on polisher design, system materials, cycle design (high- and intermediate-
pressure drain pumping), operating pH, pH additive, resin selection, and condensate
oxygen concentration. Because of the coupled effects of these parameters, the effect of
polishers on transport will vary from system to system. Nonetheless, certain
generalizations can be made based on studies of the effects of condensate polishing on
corrosion product transport at operating PWRs9:
1. Deep bed demineralizers removal efficiencies are expected to be 60 to 85% for iron,
75 to 93% for copper, and 70 to 90% for nickel.
2. Powdered resin filter removal efficiencies are somewhat greater at 87 to 98% for iron
and 80 to 90% for copper.
3. Powdered resin filters remove 90% or more of the filterables but will have reduced
efficiencies relative to deep bed polishers for removal of ionic materials. Deep beds,
which are preferred for removal of ionic species, are less efficient for the removal of
particulate species.
4. Feedwater iron and copper transport rates can be reduced 30 to 50% and 75 to 90%,
respectively, by condensate polishing.
5. Increased transport rates during transients can be controlled more effectively by

powdered resin filters than by deep beds.
Boiling Water Reactors
The BWR is a direct cycle system which generates steam for the turbine in the nuclear
reactor vessel. Condensate is passed through full-flow condensate polishers and is
returned to the reactor vessel through the feedwater heaters. Most BWRs do not employ
high- or low-pressure drain pumping.
EPRI BWR guidelines specify chemistry control parameters for reactor water and
feedwater6. Allowable condensate polisher effluent impurity concentrations can be
calculated from these specifications. Highly soluble impurities entering the reactor
vessel are removed by the reactor water cleanup (RWCU) system. Minimal deposition
and steam transport occur.
The RWCU effectiveness for removal of feedwater-borne dissolved impurities needs to

be considered to estimate polished condensate requirements from the reactor water
specifications. At equilibrium, the relationship between feedwater and reactor water
soluble impurities is given by:
2-10
(C FW )(WFW )
C RW = (eq. 6)
(WCU )(E)
where:
CRW = Concentration in the primary coolant, ppb,
CFW = Concentration in the feedwater, ppb,
WFW = Feedwater mass flow rate, lb/h or kg/h,
WCU = RWCU mass flow, kg/h, and
E = RWCU fractional removal efficiency.
Utilization of typical BWR parameters in the above equation at reactor water guideline
concentration limits and a 1% reactor water cleanup flow rate gives an estimated
maximum feedwater concentration of 0.15 ppb for chloride and sulfate (Table 2-5). A
condensate polisher effluent conductivity to 0.08 µS/cm is specified in the guidelines.
In practice, BWR condensate polisher systems produce significantly lower effluent

contaminant levels. In particular, reactor water concentrations of <2 ppb chloride and 2
to 5 ppb sulfate are achieved routinely. These values correspond to condensate polisher
effluent concentrations of three to seven times less than Table 2-5 values.
Most BWRs in the United States cascade all feedwater heater drains to the condenser.
For these units, condensate polisher effluent concentrations for soluble impurities and
corrosion products approximately equal the feedwater concentrations (Table 2-5).
Heater drains are a potential source of iron corrosion products in forward pumped
plants. As such, the polished condensate iron concentrations generally need to be lower
than the inferred Table 2-5 values. The forward pumped drains generally do not
increase feedwater soluble impurities significantly since steam impurity transport is
minimal in BWRs.
Table 2-5
Maximum Impurity Levels in BWR Polished Condensate Based on EPRI Guidelines
Polished
Impurity Feedwater Reactor Water Condensate
Chloride, ppb 0.05b 5 0.05b
Sulfate, ppb 0.05b 5 0.05b
Iron, ppb 5 -- --
2-11
Table 2-5
Maximum Impurity Levels in BWR Polished Condensate Based on EPRI Guidelines
Copper, ppb 0.1 -- --

0.3c
Conductivity, µS/cm 0.07 0.30 0.07
a
Based on a 1% reactor water cleanup system.
b
Calculated values.
c
Applicable to plants with copper alloy condensers and powdered resin filter
demineralizers.
11
It should be noted that EPRI had previously prepared separate guidelines for BWRs
operating with hydrogen water chemistry. Values for the parameters listed in Table 2-5
are the same as for normal water chemistry operation.
Full flow condensate polishing is employed at all BWRs. Of the 37 operating BWR units
in the United States, 16 have deep bed polishers manufactured by at least five different
vendors, 17 have powdered resin filter/demineralizers and four units have both. All
units with seawater cooling use deep bed demineralizers.
Justification for BWR Condensate Polishing
Ionic Transport. The major goal of controlling ionic impurity ingress to the BWR is to
minimize the tendency for stress corrosion cracking (SCC) of sensitized stainless steel
and Inconel materials. SCC is dependent not only on the reactor water chloride and
oxygen concentrations but also on concentrations of other anionic species such as
sulfate.
The most common causes of increases in reactor water chloride and sulfate
concentrations and conductivity are condenser cooling water inleakage, improper
operation of exchange units (both condensate and RWCU) and radwaste recycle. In
addition to situations of relatively continuous ingress, transient events such as plant
startups also can have a significant impact.
As discussed in Chapter 1, deep bed polishers have a much larger capacity for ionic
impurities than filter/demineralizers and better maintain reactor water purity when the
condensate contains elevated levels of ionic impurities.
2-12
Corrosion Product Transport. Iron and copper transport to the reactor leads to
increased deposits on the fuel. These deposits may promote fuel failures. In addition,
neutron activation of the corrosion products results in increased radiation buildup. The
major sources of iron are the condenser and extraction piping surfaces. (Heater drains
are not pumped forward in most BWRs). Although elevated copper inputs have been
associated with accelerated fuel cladding corrosion at several plants,12 particulate iron
oxides are the predominant corrosion product species at operating BWRs. Copper
inputs are of concern only in plants with copper alloy tubed condensers and powdered
resin filter/demineralizers. The major fraction of the feedwater iron and copper
transport results from leakage through the condensate polishers.
As discussed in Chapter 1, the type and mode of operation of the condensate polishers
impact on their effectiveness in removing corrosion products. In a study of 33 operating
BWRs,13 insoluble iron concentrations in the feedwater of plants with
filter/demineralizers was significantly lower (1.5 ppb) than in plants with deep bed
demineralizers (5.8 ppb). This results from the better filtration efficiency of
filter/demineralizers compared to deep beds.
Condensate Polishing Effluent Targets
Suggested limitations for all types of units are consolidated in Table 2-6. These
consolidations result from compilation of the various individual water quality
guidelines.
2-13
Table 2-6
Condensate Polisher Effluent Limitations--Comparison Tables
2-14
Cycle Chemistry Effects
Benefits
The major benefit from the use of condensate polishing is the improvement of
feedwater quality. The quality of polished water that can potentially be achieved from
hydrogen cycle and ammonia cycle systems has been briefly discussed earlier and will
be discussed in more depth later. The system design and the operating methods and
care play a major role in the quality of condensate polisher effluent achieved and,
therefore, in the amount of improvement achieved. Some nuclear power plants report
that they are consistently achieving polished condensate purity levels, at or below the
current limits of analytical detection, i.e., less than 5 ppt sodium and chloride and less
than 10 ppt sulfate. A fossil fired plant, operating without the advanced
instrumentation employed on nuclear installations has shown that it can consistently
achieve polished water containing less than 50 ppt. More typically, a polishing plant
without high efficiency separation/regeneration facilities and operated in a routine
way will yield polished water containing about 0.1-0.5 ppb of impurities. Separate bed
polishers (cation-anion) can be expected to yield slightly less pure water, with ionic
impurities in the range of 0.2-1.0 ppb. These performance relate to operation in the
absence of condenser leaks.
A well maintained condensate polishing system should treat minor impurity ingress
events with little if any perturbation in the quality of polished water. A 270 MWe gas
fired station with once-through boilers, has reported that it had operated with a small
condenser leak (giving influent condensate levels of about 100 ppb sodium) for over 6
months without a significant deterioration in the quality of polished water. At the other
extreme, condensate polishing systems can combat massive inleakage of impurities for
long enough to protect the steam/water circuit from contamination while allowing time
for a controlled response, i.e. shutdown. The quality of treated water probably will
deteriorate under these conditions. A condenser tube rupture incident at a nuclear
station gave influent condensate chloride levels of 10-20 ppm. The levels in polished
water are reported to have increased to about 0.2 ppb from the normal levels of less
14
than 10 ppt.
A PWR generating station suffered massive damage to its condensers from a turbine
overspeed incident. The incident resulted in blades being thrown and over 3000
condenser tubes being severed. Oil lines were also damaged so that the condensate
polishing plant was contaminated with hydraulic oil. Despite the immense load that
this incident placed upon the condensate polishing system plant it “provided just
enough protection to allow the steam generator to isolate”15. Thus, as far as ionic
impurities are concerned, a well designed and operated polishing plant acts as a sink
rather than a source. This applies to the strongly ionized compounds and to the weak
acids such as silica, CO2, and the simple organic acids.
2-15
The filtration efficiency of deep bed systems is variable, with a 70-80% removal being
considered normal. It must be noted that the performance of plants operated in the
ammonium form of amine form is complex and can be very different. This is discussed
in Chapters 1 and 4, but can be summarized by saying that polishers operated in these
high pH modes do not produce water of the same purity as those operated in the
conventional H-OH mode.
The behavior of more complex organic impurities such as the naturally occurring
“fulvic acid” macromolecules, or the sulfonate polymers released at trace levels by
cation exchange resins, is both interesting and important. A very much simplified
summary of their ion exchange behavior is that the lower molecular weight materials
are ion exchanged and removed from resins by the normal regeneration processes.
Higher molecular weight organics are also removed by ion exchange, but their
subsequent elution by normal regeneration procedures is difficult with a portion of the
organic remaining. This effectively blocks the ion exchange site, resulting in the fouling
of the resins. Organic impurities of very high molecular weight pass through ion
exchange beds to contaminate the final polished water and to be subsequently
thermally degraded to simpler compound in the high-temperature parts of the steam
cycle.
Most designs of power stations pump the high-pressure feedwater heater drains into
the feedwater so that they pass forward to the boiler or steam generator. The exception
to this are most BWRs, where drains are returned to the condenser. The ratio of final
feedwater flows to condensate flows varies from about 0.82 on a typical fossil plant
(drum boiler) to about 0.7 for a PWR RSG: i.e., 20-30% of the steam does not pass into
the condenser but bypasses it through the high-pressure heater drains systems. Thus, a
route exists by which impurities in steam or moisture droplets can recirculate. The
effect of such a condensate polisher bypass is more evident on those designs, such as
PWRs, in which the HP bled steam contains a significantly high level of moisture. By
partition effects, this moisture carries a disproportionate percentage of the impurities
present in the steam leaving the steam generator.
Despite the existence of this bypass route, it is instructive to see that a nuclear station
reports the following performance for an installation using a cation-mixed bed polisher:
(a) Steam generator sodium levels improved from 5 ppb to 0.7 ppb and eventually to
0.3 ppb.
(b) Chloride dropped from 8 ppb to 2 ppb and eventually to 0.3 ppb.
(c) Sulfate improved from 8 ppb to < 0.1 ppb.
The effect on levels of weakly ionized material is not recorded in detail, but the cation
conductivity fell from 0.25 µS/cm to 0.16 and eventually to 0.07 µS/cm indicating that
2-16
these impurities were also being effectively removed16. Silica levels before the use of
polishing were reported to be 60 ppb, and these subsequently fell to 12 ppb. Thus, in
this well documented instance the provision of polishing has significantly improved
cycle chemistry17.
Problems
Trace amounts of impurities, both ionic and particulate, escape from even the best
designed and operated condensate polishing plants. Impurity levels in polished water
can be as low as few ppt on well designed and operated units, but on poorly designed
and/or operated plants it is possible for the impurities to reach ppb levels. The leakage
mechanisms responsible for the leakage of these impurities are described in the
literature and reviewed in EPRI reports18. Briefly, they include those that allow influent
impurities to pass through ion exchange beds and those that are responsible for the
release of impurities from the resins themselves.
The most important mechanism governing the escape of influent impurities is that of
“kinetic leakage.” Fouling of the resins, normally the anion resin, leads to a significant
reduction in the rate at which ion exchange takes place so that a portion of the ions in
the influent pass directly through the bed. The condition is identified by testing, and
kinetically impaired resins should be replaced. Often this failure mode is overlooked or
treated indifferently. Kinetic impairment causes the resins to function inadequately
during a condenser leakage situation. Thus, the condensate polishing system will not
perform the required cycle protection functions when called upon to do so. Other
mechanisms leading to the escape of influent impurities include poor flow distribution
within the service vessels.
The resins themselves can contribute impurities, with the most important mechanism
being “equilibrium leakage.” Ion exchange is, as already discussed, an equilibrium
process with ionic impurities passing from the water to the resin or from the resin to the
water. Impurities are normally to be removed from the water phase, but poor
separation or regeneration results in high levels of ionic impurities remaining on the
resins. Under these circumstances the resins actually contribute these ionic impurities to
the condensate. Regeneration problems can also lead to enhanced leakage of sulfate
when it is used as the cation resin regenerant, and this is also discussed in the EPRI
18
reports.
The resin matrix can release traces of impurities, with the cation resins yielding traces of
polystyrene sulfonic acids and other sulfonated organic materials with molecular
weights ranging from a few hundred to over 15,000. These sulfonates can foul the anion
resins thus leading to an enhanced leakage of other anionic impurities due to kinetic
impairment of the anion resins. Sulfonate leakage is not a problem with most of the
types of resins used for condensate polishing because manufacturers are aware of the
potential problem and purchasers apply rigorous specifications. Some types of resins
2-17
are more likely to release unacceptably high levels of sulfonate and it is believed that
the tendency increases with resin age and with oxidation. Anion resins release traces of
organic amines, but these are not regarded as a potential problem for the power
industry.
All bead resins produce “fines” which result from operational stresses and the osmotic
shock the resins experience during regeneration. Some of these fines escape from the
beds during service to contaminate the steam cycle. EPRI studies 21 have shown that
under some circumstances the escape of resin fines can be relatively high, with those
from powdered resin filter demineralizers being higher than those from deep bed
plants. The extent and impact of the leakage of resin fines are difficult to identify, with
plant reports showing a variation in the behavior of polishers. These cation resin fines,
together with any sulfonated organic material, are slowly thermally degraded in the
steam/water circuit releasing sulfate. This sulfate, together with some corrosion
product debris, mainly iron oxide, and organic material will eventually degrade to
simple organic acids and other volatile matter including CO2. The fines also contribute
the exchanged ionic impurities which they have removed from the influent condensate,
including the usual sodium and chloride ions. Resin fine leakage is undesirable in that it
can accelerate corrosion, contribute to fouling and, on BWRs, increase the radioactive
contamination of the steam/water circuit. Clearly, some leakage does take place and
depends on resin type, age, and the care taken in cleaning the fines from the resins
during the cleaning or regeneration stage.
Action must be taken to resolve problems when condensate polishers are operated
outside of the station guidelines. If stations continue to operate with high impurity
leakages from the polishers, the impurities concentrate in the boiler water of drum
boilers and in PWR steam generator water with, possibly, some hideout occurring.
Depending on the concentrations involved and the treatment policies pursued,
corrosion of the boiler/steam generator could then be initiated or increased. Some of
these impurities would then be carried over in the steam, both by volatility and by
droplet carry-over, and sodium sulfate could be deposited in the reheaters of fossil fired
plants. Again, depending on the concentrations involved, turbine deposition of sodium
sulfate, sodium hydroxide, and/or sodium chloride can occur and lead to stress
corrosion, pitting corrosion, and/or corrosion fatigue failures.
Condensate polishers are used to reduce the input of impurities into a steam cycle.
When properly designed and competently operated, which includes proper attention to
the condition of the ion exchange resins, condensate polishers have repeatedly shown
the capability of producing water with ionic impurity levels in the low ppt range. As
discussed above, some impurities can escape from polishers and others are contributed
by the ion exchange beds. It is possible to minimize these effects.
2-18
System Effluent Quality
Many factors are involved in the consideration of system design and how the design
affects effluent quality. Operation in hydrogen or amine cycle is an important factor.
The effect on polished water quality of operating in the “ammonium form” has already
been discussed. The competent operation of the selected system is critical in obtaining
the best performance. All designs require attention, some more than others, and a
skillful operator can often coax an acceptable quality of water from a plant whose
design is far from the optimum. The condition of the resins used also greatly impact the
quality of the polished water. For optimum performance, the resins must be maintained
in a clean condition, resin fines removed, and the resin kinetic properties checked at
regular intervals. Given a competent plant operator and resins in good condition, the
remaining major variable is the efficiency of regeneration. For mixed beds this is
dominated by the efficiency of separation. Thus, in terms of polished water quality,
several factors control the performance of any condensate polishing system.
The final water quality from polishing plants tends to be judged on the quality achieved
under condenser leak free conditions. For most designs of nuclear power stations this is
important, for they seek to achieve the highest possible water quality in their steam
cycles. For fossil stations it is the water quality achieved under condenser leak
conditions which should be the main consideration, but for obvious reasons this is hard
to define. The development of a safe challenge test would provide a useful tool for
characterizing performance during inleakage conditions.
Condensate Polisher Designs. As these guidelines indicate, there are many alternative
designs of condensate polishing systems. The following will be considered in this
discussion:
• Powdered resin precoat filters.
• Cation-mixed beds.
• Naked mixed beds.
• Separate bed plants, both cation-anion-cation and cation-anion.
As already mentioned, design and operation of the resin regeneration plant are of vital
importance and the following will be considered:
• Inplace regeneration systems.
• External single vessel systems.
• External two-vessel systems.
• High efficiency separation/regeneration system.
• Post-regeneration resin purification systems.
2-19
Powdered Resin Precoat Filters. Powdered resin precoat filters are primarily useful as
filters. When used on PWRs and on fossil fired power stations they are normally
operated in the ammonium (of amine) form. Thus, the quality of the polished water is
dependent on the purity of the resins used and the pH of operation as described in
Chapter 4 and shown for sodium on Figure 1-21. Thus, at pH 9.4, the cation resin must
have less than 0.27% of its sites in the Na+ form to give an effluent containing less than
0.2 ppb sodium. (This simple calculation makes several assumptions including
operation at 250°C, although most polishing plants operate at significantly higher
temperatures which will increase sodium leakage).
A powdered resin precoat filter has a very limited ion exchange capacity, and this is a
disadvantage in the event of a condenser leak. However, under neutral water
conditions they are capable of yielding a very high quality of polished condensate but
again controlled by the impurity levels in the powdered resins. They are very effective
in filtering iron oxide corrosion debris (crud) from condensate, with a removal
efficiency normally of up to 90%. EPRI studies show that the release of resin fines to the
feed system is greater from powdered resin polishing plants than from deep bed plants.
Cation-Mixed Beds. The benefits of the cation-mixed bed polishing plant design have
already been discussed. When operating in the H-OH mode the cation bed removes the
ammonia leaving the mixed bed to function purely as a polishing bed to remove any
remaining traces of cations and anions leaking from the resins. The leading cation resin
bed is regenerated when necessary, with the mixed bed being regenerated less
frequently. Many operators adopt a regeneration program in which the mixed bed is
regenerated every 3rd to 10th cation bed regeneration. This reduced frequency of
regeneration, together with the fact that the cation bed minimizes iron crud fouling of
the mixed bed resins, improves the quality of the polished water from the mixed bed.
The cation-mixed bed design does not produce a high quality polished water without
an effective regeneration plant and competent operators. The effluent quality of this
process as with other mixed bed processes is determined by the condition of the mixed
bed resins. Given, however, effective regeneration, resins in good condition, and
competent operation the cation-mixed bed design is capable of yielding polished water
17
of extremely high quality as shown by the experience at a US PWR . This station
reports the consistent achievement of polished water containing less than 5 ppt of
sodium and chloride and less than 10 ppt of sulfate--these numbers being the
approximate detection limits of the impurities. As detailed in this report, the plants
have also performed well under severe condenser leak conditions. Crud removal
efficiencies of 70-80% are to be expected.
Naked Mixed Beds. Naked mixed beds when operated in the H-OH form on plant
conditioned with ammonia or other volatile amine will, in the absence of condenser
leaks, exhaust in several days to several weeks depending on their design, resin mixture
and the concentration of volatile amine. As already described, they are then removed
2-20
from service, resins transferred to the regeneration plant and separated, cleaned,
regenerated, and rinsed. The subsequent performance of the resins depends critically on
the efficiency with which these various stages of the regeneration process are
performed.
Some naked mixed beds are claiming to be producing polished water of approximately
the same quality as the best cation-mixed beds, i.e., less than 5 ppt of sodium and
chloride. More typically the will be yielding polished water with impurity levels of
about 0.1-0.5 ppb of the sodium and chloride with slightly higher levels of sulfate,
quality levels which are acceptable for fossil plants and once-through PWRs but only
marginally acceptable for BWRs and PWRs with recirculating steam generators. This
quality is similar to that routinely obtained from many cation-mixed bed plants. Based
on the achievable effluent quality, in optimized systems, it is difficult to justify the
higher cost of the cation-mixed bed system for many applications, based solely on the
capability to produce high quality water. In practice, the other advantages of the cation
mixed bed, namely operational convenience and greater ion exchange capacities, are
real and have to be considered against the higher capital cost of such polishing systems.
As with cation-mixed bed plants, the water quality obtained from polishers of the
naked mixed bed design is very dependent on the regeneration techniques used, the
care given by operators, and the condition of the resins. Iron crud removal is again in
the range of 70-80% depending largely on the state of the iron oxide being filtered.
Separate Bed Polishers. Separate bed polishing plants are used on some power stations
in Europe and also on plants in Australia and Singapore. They are used on the large
(3600 MWe), dry-cooled, fossil power stations in South Africa so that there is
considerable worldwide experience with their use. The attraction of such plants is their
simplicity; however, as shown in Chapter 3, they are significantly more expensive to
purchase and install than naked mixed bed plants. Normally, a cation-anion-cation
configuration is used, although the South African plants use a simple cation-anion
design. Many German plants use in situ regeneration with some systems additionally
using counter-current regeneration.
The water quality produced by separate bed polishers varies from about 0.2 ppb to
about 1 ppb which is adequate for many designs of fossil fired plants. The thorough
studies on a proprietary design of a separate bed polisher, in which one vessel houses
layers of cation, anion, and cation resins, showed under condenser leak free conditions
that polished water containing less than 0.05 ppb of the common impurities could be
19
obtained . However, it was reported that the plant “had not performed well during
condenser leak tests.” It must be noted that very severe criteria were being applied and
that the performance of the plant under leak conditions was more than adequate for
many fossil plant applications.
2-21
Separate bed polishing plants are being used throughout the world, but mainly in
Europe, and they are providing an adequate quality of polished water for some designs
of fossil fired power stations. The separate bed designs are particularly attractive for
operation in the ammonium form, although these designs are not used in the ammonia
form in Germany20.
Regeneration Plant Design. There is little doubt that the design and operation of mixed
bed regeneration plants have a profound effect upon the quality of the water produced
by any polisher. While the cation-mixed bed design can reasonably be argued to have
operational advantages relative to the naked mixed bed, these can be negated by poor
regeneration system design or poor operation.
In situ regeneration, outside of Germany, finds little favor mainly due to the perceived
risks. Some early polishers with external regeneration used a single regeneration vessel
and some of these are still in use. They produce regenerated mixed bed resins which
yield, in service, a polished water containing up to 1 ppb of the common ionic
impurities. The drawbacks of this early design relate to separation problems and
resultant cross-contamination by regenerants.
Some external mixed bed regeneration systems now use a two-vessel system. Resins
from the service vessel are transferred to a separation vessel (which also acts as the
cation regeneration tank). Following separation, the top anion resin layer transferred to
an anion regeneration vessel. A well designed and operated two-vessel regeneration
system is satisfactory in many power stations for the regeneration of mixed bed resins
intended for operation in the hydrogen cycle.
Many different designs and procedures have been devised to ensure efficient resin
separation. The problem of resin cross-contamination remains, but with care and an
appropriate design of the internals of the vessels this problem can be minimized. A well
operated plant is capable of giving resin-cross-contamination of about 1% by volume.
Better separations are reported by some users while, at the other extreme, resin cross-
contamination as high as 20% has been seen. For plants operated beyond ammonia
break, a higher degree of separation is required or a post-regeneration treatment
procedure must be used.
The various designs of high efficiency separation/regeneration systems and post-

regeneration resin purification procedures have already been described. The use of
these with a polishing plant of conventional design can, when properly operated,
significantly improve the quality of the final polished water.
Summary. It is difficult to directly compare the performance of the various designs of

condensate polishing plants since performance critically depends on many variables.
These variables include resin condition, the skill and interest shown by the operator, the
2-22
attitude of the management towards water quality issues and condensate polishing,
and, of course, on the equipment available.
Powdered resin precoat filters have a proven record as filters but have limited ion
exchange capacity. Cation-mixed beds have real operational advantages over naked
mixed beds, although they are more expensive to purchase and install. However, there
is no evidence that, in the absence of condenser leaks, they provide a higher quality of
polished water than a simple mixed bed assuming equally effective designs of mixed
bed regeneration system. While there has been much emphasis on regeneration
equipment, the design of the service vessels is also important. Effective flow
distribution and collection are essential. A service vessel with poor flow distribution can
negate efforts made to separate and regenerate resin efficiently.
References
1. “Interim Consensus Guidelines on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry.” Cycle Chemistry

Guidelines, Electric Power Research Institute, June 1986. CS-4629.
2. “Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment.” Electric

Power Research Institute, December 1994. TR-102285.
3. “Cycle Chemistry For Fossil Plants: Phosphate Treatment For Drum Units.” Electric
Power Research Institute, December 1994, TR-103665.
4. “Sodium Hydroxide For Conditioning the Boiler Water of Drum Type Boilers.”
Electric Power Research Institute, January 1995. TR-104007.
5. “PWR Secondary Water Chemistry Guidelines, Revision 3.” Electric Power Research
Institute, March 1993. TR-102134.
6. “BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines: 1993 Revision.” Electric Power Research

Institute, February 1994. TR-103515.
7. S. G. Sawochka and W. L. Pearl. “The Behavior of Sodium, Chloride and Sulfate in

PWR Secondary Cycles.” Proc. International Water Conference, pp. 249-259 (1983).
8. Not used.
9. S. G. Sawochka, et al. “Corrosion-Product Transport in PWR Secondary Systems.”

Electric Power Research Institute, December 1981. NP-2149.
10. S. G. Sawochka, et al. “Effect of Moisture Separator Drain Routing on OTSG
Secondary System Chemistry.” Electric Power Research Institute, July 1982. NP-
2505.
11. “BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Guidelines: 1987 Revision.” Electric Power
Research Institute, December 1988. NP-4947-SR.
2-23
12. M. O. Marlow, et al. “Nuclear Fuel Cladding Localized Corrosion.” ANS

International Topical Meeting on Light Water Reactor Fuel Performance, Orlando,
Florida, April 1985.
13. G. H. Dillman, et al. “BWR Coolant Impurity Identification Study.” Electric Power
Research Institute, August 1985. NP-4156.
14. D. C. Auerswald. “San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Polisher System,

Performance and Impact on Steam Generator Chemistry.” EPRI Condensate
Polishing Workshop, Chicago, IL (May 1987).
15. P. McNulty. “Salem Unit 2, Condenser Polisher Experience During Turbine Failure.”
EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, New Orleans, LA (September 1993).
16. D. C. Auerswald. “Effects of Cation Leachables on Condensate Polisher System

Performance.” Ion Exchange for Industry, Edited by M. Streat, Published by Ellis
Horwood, UK, 1988.
17. D. C. Auerswald and J. Z. Mortensen. “Secondary Side Chemistry at San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station.” presented at EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop
Little Rock, AR (May 31-June 2, 1989).
18. M. A. Sadler, et al. “Condensate Polishers for Brackish Water Cooled PWRs.”
Electric Power Research Institute, July 1986. NP-4550.
19. D. C. Auerswald, F. M. Cutler, and S. S. Simmons. “Parts Per Trillion Without Mixed
Beds.” Proc. International Water Conference, pp, 385-410 (1989).
20. A. Bursik and F. De Dardell. “Comparative Evaluation of Condensate Polisher

Design and Performance.” Proc. International Water Conference, pp. 419-424, 1989.
21. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All Volatile Treatment. Electric Power
Research Institute, May 1996. TR-105041.
22. “Condensate Polisher Resin Leakage Quantification and Resin Transport Studies.”
Electric Power Research Institute, April 1983. NP-2981.
2-24
3
JUSTIFICATION OF CONDENSATE POLISHING
Justification of the installation of condensate polishing equipment includes the straight

forward economic analyses (cost versus benefits) and the consideration of the less
clearly definable cost savings related to the improvement polishing brings to cycle
water chemistry. This section describes suggested methods and approaches to evaluate
condensate polishing for both retrofit installations and for new power plants. The
capital and operating costs of the range of condensate polisher installations including
mixed bed (MB) and powdered resin (PR) polishers are presented. Regeneration
equipment options are also presented. The benefits of condensate polishing are
addressed, including improved unit availability, faster unit startups, reduced boiler
blowdown, and reduced chemical cleanings. Comparison of the cost of condensate
polishing versus the benefits associated with polishing is then presented to show when
polishing is justified. Costs presented here are based on fossil units, however, the
methods shows are equally applicable to nuclear units.
Condensate Polisher System Installed Costs
Condensate polisher system costs are presented here to show the expected capital
required to install various polishing systems. Costs of polisher installations are
developed for both new power plants and for polishers installed in existing plants as
retrofit systems. Costs are provided for mixed bed, powdered resin, and mixed
bed/powdered resin combination systems. The costs of regeneration options for both
hydrogen and ammonia cycle operation are also presented. The information presented
represents the expected magnitude and scope of costs associated with condensate
polishing systems. Costs from actual recent polisher installations have been used where
available.
Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polisher Installed with a New Power Plant
The cost of a mixed bed condensate polishing system to be installed with a new power
plant is presented in Table 3-1.
3-1
Justification of Condensate Polishing
Table 3-1
Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed With a New
Power Plant (440 MWe)
Item Cost
Condensate polishing system equipment $1,737,000
Support facilities $ 261,000
Equipment installation $ 500,000
Indirect costs $ 425,000
Total installed cost $2,923,000
The costs are based upon an actual, two-unit facility in the southeastern area of the
United States. The polishers at both units are mixed bed systems. The costs presented in
Table 3-1 represent the entire cost associated with installation of the condensate
polisher. The cost shown for condensate polishing system equipment is for equipment
supplied by the condensate polisher system manufacturer. This equipment includes the
service vessels, regeneration vessels, interconnecting piping, valves, instrumentation,
and controls. The auxiliary facilities include the mechanical, electrical, and structural
equipment and materials necessary for operation of the polishing equipment. The major
auxiliary facilities are as follows:
• Larger condensate pump motors.
• Condensate piping runs to and from the polisher.
• Polisher isolation valves and bypass control valve.
• Acid and caustic storage tanks.
• Miscellaneous piping for supply of regeneration water, wastewater transfer
piping, air piping, and associated supports.
• Motor control centers.
• Power and control cable, conduit, and cable tray.
• Building space to house the polishing equipment.
• Equipment pads.
• Sumps and trenches with coatings.
3-2
• Acid and caustic storage tank containment and foundation.

• Miscellaneous structural steel.
Equipment installation represents the labor and material costs associated with
installation of the polishing equipment and auxiliary facilities by the mechanical,
electrical, and structural contractors. Indirect costs include the engineering, construction
management, sales tax, allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC), and
Owner administrative costs associated with purchase and installation of a polishing
system. The indirect costs shown above are considered typical in the utility industry but
may vary greatly in individual cases. The cost of the support facilities, installation, and
indirect costs represent approximately 40% of the total installed cost of the polishing
system installed with a new plant.
A description of the condensate polishing equipment presented in Table 3-1 and its
associated power plant are provided below.
Power Plant Features

• 440 MW coal fired baseloaded unit.
• 2600 psig drum-type boiler with reheat.
• 3,200,000 lb/h steaming rate.
• AVT steam cycle treatment.
• All ferrous feedwater system.
• Condenser cooling water.
— Cooling towers.
— Circulating water TDS of 3600 mg/L.
— Circulating water chloride concentration is 660 mg/L as Cl.
• Type 316L stainless steel condenser tubes.
Condensate Polishing System Features

• Full-flow polishing system (6000 gpm maximum condensate flow).
• Three 50% capacity, rubber-lined service vessels.
— 3000 gpm capacity per vessel.
— 720 psig vessel design pressure
— 96-inch diameter by 74-inch side sheet
— 36-inch resin bed depth
3-3
— 96 cubic feet of cation resin, 48 cubic feet of anion resin, and 23 cubic feet of inert
resin per vessel.
— 3/16-inch thick rubber lining.
— 30 psi pressure drop across newly regenerated vessels at 3000 gpm per vessel.
• Three vessel external regeneration system consisting of a cation regeneration tank
(CRT), anion regeneration tank (ART), and resin storage tank (RST). All vessels were
rubber-lined.
— CRT: 72-inch OD, 162-inch SS.
— ART: 42-inch OD, 159-inch SS.
— RST: 72-inch OD, 118-inch SS.
• Two 1800 gpm recycle pumps.
• Acid and caustic dilution and feed system including pumps and water heater.
• Interconnecting piping and valves.
• Controls and instrumentation.
• Total of four resin charges provided.
• Lime rinse system provided to reduce sodium to allow ammonia cycle operation.
• Polisher effluent quality specifications during normal service conditions with
hydrogen cycle operation are as follows:
TDS 25 ppb
Iron 5 ppb as Fe
Silica 5 ppb as SiO2
Sodium 1 ppb as Na
Chloride 2 ppb as Cl
Specific Cond 0.1 µS/cm
Service Vessel Alternatives. Several alternative service vessel configurations could have
been used in place of the three 50% service vessels described above. The cost of other
service vessel configurations is shown in Table 3-2. Costs shown in Table 3-2 are the
total installed costs for complete condensate polishing systems including support
facilities, installation, and indirect costs.
3-4
Table 3-2
Total Installed Cost of Alternate Service Vessel Configurations
Service Vessel Cost
One 100% capacity vessel $3,139,000
Two 100% capacity vessels $3,943,000
Three 50% capacity vessels (base case) $2,923,000
Three 33% capacity vessels $2,816,000
Four 33% capacity vessels $3,048,000
Powdered resin prefilters upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $4,519,000
Cation exchangers upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $4,771,000
One 100% prefilter (cartridge type) upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $3,192,000
Three 50% prefilters (cartridge type) upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $3,351,000
Two 50% cation-anion-cation trains (in-place regeneration) $3,467,000
Three 50% cation-anion-cation trains (in-place regeneration) $4,676,000
Regeneration Equipment Alternatives. Condensate polisher system costs presented in

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in most cases were based on using external vessels for regeneration
of the ion exchange resins. The major alternatives available for external regeneration
facilities include the number of regeneration vessels used and various processes to
reduce resin cross-contamination and sodium reduction processes. The cost of various
regeneration equipment alternatives ranged from $42,000 to $227,000. These costs are
on the order of 5 to 10% of the total system cost.
Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polisher Installed with a New Power Plant
The cost of a powdered resin condensate polishing system to be installed with a new
power plant is presented in Table 3-3. The cost is based on installing a powdered resin
system on the same plant described above for the 6000 gpm mixed bed polisher system.
3-5
The cost presented in Table 3-3 represents the entire cost associated with installation of
a polisher.
Table 3-3
Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polishing System Installed With a New Power
Plant (440 MWe)
Item Cost
Condensate polishing system equipment $ 950,000
Condensate Polisher System Features. The costs shown in Table 3-3 include the
following condensate polisher equipment:
• Full-flow polishing system (6000 gpm total condensate flow).
• Three 50% capacity service vessels.
— 720 psig vessel design pressure.
— 66-inch diameter vessels.
• Three holding pumps.
• Precoat/resin tanks.
• Precoat pump.
Support equipment and materials required for the polisher system are to be similar to
the mixed bed system with the exception of the acid and caustic storage facilities.
3-6
System Alternatives. The cost of alternate powdered resin systems and equipment is
presented in Table 3-4. Costs shown are the total installed costs for complete condensate
polishing systems. Costs include support facilities, installation, and indirect costs.
Table 3-4
Total Installed Cost of Alternative Powdered Resin Equipment
Alternatives Cost
One 100% capacity service vessel Exceeds maximum size available
Two 100% capacity service vessels Exceeds maximum size available
Two 50% capacity service vessels $1,262,000
Three 50% capacity service vessels $1,598,000
Four 33% capacity service vessels $1,798,000
Body Feed System $193,000
Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polisher Installed as a Retrofit
The above cost tables apply to new systems installed with the construction of a new
plant. Condensate polishing is also beneficial to existing operating plants. The cost of a
mixed bed condensate polishing system installed as a retrofit is presented in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5
Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed as a Retrofit
(360 MWe)
Item Cost
Condensate polishing system equipment $1,663,000
3-7
Table 3-5
Cost of a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed as a Retrofit
(360 MWe)
Item Cost
The cost of the polisher system is based upon an actual retrofit installation in an existing
power plant in the southeastern area of the United States. Justification for installing
condensate polishers was based on studies that showed polishing was economically
advantageous. The studies showed that the capital and operating costs of the
condensate polishing retrofit were less than the benefits achieved from reduction of lost
capacity due to outages, shorter startup durations, decreased unit maintenance, and
reduced chemical cleaning frequencies. The power plant has been in commercial
operation since 1982. The condensate polishing system was placed in operation in 1992.
The costs presented in Table 3-5 represent the entire cost associated with installation of
the retrofit polisher, calculated in 1994 dollars. The cost shown for condensate polishing
system equipment is the equipment supplied by the condensate polisher system
manufacturer. Support facilities include equipment and materials necessary for
operation of the polishing system and modifications required to existing equipment
associated with the polisher installation. The major support facilities are as follows:
• Modification of condensate pumps and motors (condensate system pressure drop
increased by up to approximately 60 psi due to polisher vessels, valves, and piping).
• Condensate piping to and from the polishers (800 feet of 14-inch Schedule 40).
• Condensate pump recirculation piping and control valve modifications.
• Polisher system isolation valves and bypass control valve.
• Miscellaneous piping for regeneration water, service water, wastewater, chemicals,
and air.
• Prefabricated metal building (two-story, 34 ft by 64 ft).
• Sumps and trenches with coatings.
• Neutralization sump with acid brick.
• Equipment pads.
• Chemical waste pumps.
• New acid storage tank.
3-8
• Acid storage tank containment and foundation.

• Refurbishing of an existing caustic storage tank.
• Miscellaneous structural steel.
• Piping rack between plant and condensate Polisher Building.
• Asphalt paving.
• Power and control cable, conduit, and cable tray.
• Motor control centers.
Equipment installation represents the labor and material costs associated with
installation of the polishing equipment and support facilities by the contractors. Indirect
costs include the engineering, construction management, sales tax, AFUDC, and Owner
administrative costs with the polisher. Again, the indirect costs are considered typical
but can vary greatly for individual utility cases. The cost of the support facilities,
installation, and indirect costs represent approximately 55% of the total installed cost of
the polishing system installed as a retrofit.
A description of the condensate polishing equipment is presented in Table 3-5 and its
associated power plant are provided below:
Power Plant Features

• 360 MW coal fired baseloaded unit.
• Supplementary refuse derived fuel firing.
• 2400 psi drum-type boiler with reheat.
• Steam cycle treatment includes hydrazine and ammonia feed to the condensate and
phosphate feed to the boiler.
• Condenser cooling water.
— Cooling towers.
— Circulating water TDS of 3000 mg/L.
— Circulating water chloride concentration of 950 mg/L as Cl.
• 90-10 Cu-Ni condenser tubes.
• Mixed Fe-Cu feedwater train.
Condensate Polishing System Features

• Full-flow condensate polishing system (4700 gpm maximum condensate flow).
• Three 50% capacity, rubber-lined service vessels.
3-9

— 525 psig vessel design pressure.
— 90-inch diameter by 54-inch side sheet.
— 40-inch resin bed depth.
— 90 cubic feet of cation resin and 51 cubic feet of anion resin per vessel.
• Three-vessel external regeneration system consisting of a cation regeneration tank,
anion regeneration tank, and resin storage tank. All vessels are rubber-lined.
— CRT: 60-inch OD, 102-inch SS.
— ART: 60-inch OD, 234-inch SS.
— RST: 66-inch OD, 126-inch SS.
• Regeneration system including the caustic floatation and bottom transfer
regeneration processes.
• Two 1100 gpm recycle pumps.
• Acid and caustic dilution and feed system including pumps and water heater.
• Total of four resin charges provided.
• Polisher effluent quality expected during normal service conditions with hydrogen
cycle operation is as follows:
— TDS 25 ppb
— Suspended solids 10 ppb
— Iron as Fe 5 ppb
— Copper as Cu 2 ppb
— Silica as SiO2 5 ppb
— Sodium as Na 1 ppb
— Chloride as Cl 2 ppb
— Specific Cond. 0.1 µS/cm
The polisher installation described above would be considered a relatively high cost
condensate polisher retrofit project. The major contributors to the high cost were the
totally separate new building, long condensate piping runs, and new condensate pump
motors.
Service Vessel Alternatives. Alternative service vessel configurations could have been
used instead of the three 50% service vessels described above. The cost of other service
3-10
vessel configurations is presented in Table 3-6. Costs shown in Table 3-6 are the total
installed costs for complete condensate polishing systems including support facilities,
installation, and indirect costs.
Table 3-6
Total Installed Cost of Alternative Service Vessel Configurations
Service Vessel Configuration Cost
One 100% capacity vessel $3,427,000
Three 50% capacity vessels (base case) $3,774,000
Three 33% capacity vessels $3,590,000
Four 33% capacity vessels $3,999,000
Powdered resin prefilters upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $5,148,000
Cation exchangers upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $5,410,000
One 100% prefilter (cartridge type) upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $4,020,000
Three 50% prefilters (cartridge type) upstream of three 50% M.B. vessels $4,094,000
Two 50% cation-anion-cation trains (in-place regeneration) $4,326,000
Three 50% cation-anion-cation trains (in-place regeneration) $5,634,000
Regeneration Equipment Alternatives. The cost of various regeneration equipment

alternatives for the retrofit case were also evaluated. Again, these costs ranged from 5 to
10% of the total system costs.
Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polisher Installed as a Retrofit
The cost of a powdered resin condensate polishing system to be installed as a retrofit is

presented in Table 3-7. The cost is based on installing a powdered resin system on the
same plant described for the 4700 gpm mixed bed polisher retrofit system. The cost
3-11
presented in Table 3-9 represents the entire cost associated with installing a retrofit
polisher.
Table 3-7
Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polishing System Installed as a Retrofit
(360 MWe)
Item Cost
Condensate polishing system equipment $ 840,000
Condensate Polisher System Features. The costs shown in Table 3-7 include the
following condensate polisher equipment:
• Full-flow polishing system (4700 gpm total condensate flow).
• Three 50% capacity service vessels.
— 525 psi vessel design pressure.
— 54-inch diameter vessels.
• Three holding pumps.
• Precoat/resin tanks.
• Precoat pump.
Support equipment and materials required for the polisher system would be similar to
the mixed bed retrofit system with the exception of the acid and caustic storage
facilities.
3-12
System Alternatives. The cost of alternate powdered resin systems and equipment is
presented in Table 3-8. Costs shown are the total installed costs for complete condensate
polishing systems. Costs include support facilities, installation, and indirect costs.
Table 3-8
Total Installed Cost of Alternate Powdered Resin Equipment
Alternatives Cost
One 100% capacity service vessel $1,345,000
Four 33% capacity service vessels $1,998,000
Body Feed System $ 226,000
Condensate Polishing System Operating Costs
Condensate polisher operating costs are presented in this section to indicate the
expected first year operating costs for the various polisher systems. Operating costs are
presented here for mixed bed and powdered resin systems in both new and existing
plants. The costs are based on the base polisher systems described earlier. These first
year operating costs have been used to develop levelized annual costs of operation to
determine the differential life cycle cost of condensate polishing systems.
Operating Costs for a Mixed Bed Polisher Installed in a New Plant
The first year operating cost of a full-flow, 6000 gpm, mixed bed condensate polishing
system to be installed with a new power plant is presented in Table 3-9. Costs are
presented for both hydrogen and ammonia cycle operation.
The costs presented in Table 3-9 include both variable and fixed operating costs.
Variable operating costs are dependent on the annual capacity factor for the power
plant. The variable costs shown in the table are based on a 100% annual capacity factor
for the plant. Fixed operating costs are annual costs that are not dependent on the plant
capacity factor.
3-13
Significant variable operating costs include demineralized water used for regeneration,
consumption of cycle chemicals (ammonia) by the condensate polisher, regeneration
chemicals, resin replacement, electricity consumed during regeneration, and increased
condensate pump electrical consumption as a result of the polishers.
The cost of demineralized water for regeneration has been determined using 275 gallons
per cubic foot of resin based on condensate polisher manufacturer experience and
guidelines. For this study, demineralized water production cost was assumed to be
$2.00 per thousand gallons. The differences between the hydrogen and ammonia cycles,
indicated in Table 3-9, occur because of different frequencies of regeneration. The mixed
bed operating in the ammonia cycle is assumed to be regenerated once every 30 days
whereas a mixed bed operating in the hydrogen cycle is assumed to be regenerated
once every 5 days.
The cost associated with the loss of cycle chemical has been calculated on the basis of
the amount of ammonia removed by the polisher and thus, must be fed to the cycle to
maintain pH values for the condensate system. Costs associated with regeneration
chemicals are dependent on the frequency of regenerations, the amounts of acid and
caustic required to regenerate the cation and anion resins, and the market price for
these chemicals.
Complete resin replacement has been assumed to occur every 3 years, a conservative
assumption. This cost is dependent on the volume of resin in the system and the cost of
cation and anion results.
Table 3-9
First Year of Cost of Operation for a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed
with a New Plant (440 MWe)
Item Hydrogen Cycle Operation Ammonia Cycle Operation
Variable O&M
Regeneration water $ 17,000 $ 3,000
Cycle chemical (NH3) $ 79,000 $ 26,000
Regeneration chemicals $20,000 $ 3,000
Resin replacement $ 24,000 $ 24,000
Electricity $ 97,000 $ 32,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $237,000 $ 88,000
3-14
Table 3-9
First Year of Cost of Operation for a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed
with a New Plant (440 MWe)
Fixed O&M
Electrical demand $ 16,000 $ 16,000
Maintenance $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Labor $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $ 34,000 $ 34,000
First Year Cost of Operation $271,000 $122,000
Electricity consumed during regeneration represents the costs of operating the recycle
pumps, regeneration water pumps, acid and caustic pumps, and the dilution water
heater. The electricity cost also accounts for increased condensate pump electricity use
due to the additional motor horsepower required to overcome the pressure drop across
the condensate polishing system. A mixed bed polisher operating in the ammonia cycle
represents the same increased electrical loading on the condensate pumps as one
operating in the hydrogen cycle, but is regenerated less frequently.
Significant fixed operating costs include the electrical demand charge for the
regeneration equipment and larger condensate pump motors, maintenance costs for the
condensate polisher system, and additional labor for operating the condensate polisher
system.
Operating Costs for a Powdered Resin Polisher Installed in a New Plant
The first year operating cost of the base full-flow 6000 gpm powdered resin condensate
polishing system to be installed with a new power plant as described earlier is
presented in Table 3-10.
3-15
Table 3-10
First Year Cost of Operation for a Powdered Resin Condensate
Polishing System Installed with a New Plant (440 MWe)
Item Cost
Variable O&M
Regeneration water $4,000
Cycle chemical (NH3) $5,000
Precoat material $84,000
Electricity $51,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $144,000
Fixed O&M
Electrical demand $4,000
Maintenance $5,000
Labor $4,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $13,000
First Year Cost of Operation $157,000
Significant variable operating costs for a powdered resin condensate polisher include
demineralized water use, replacement of consumed cycle chemicals, precoat material,
and electricity.
Demineralized water costs are based on polisher manufacturer recommended

demineralized water requirements, condensate flow rate, and the estimated
demineralized water costs. The powdered resin system consumes a small fraction of the
cycle chemicals that a mixed bed system consumes. The cost presented for precoat
material is based on manufacturer recommendations for the amount of material per
precoat, cost of precoat material, and one precoat per operating vessel per week.
Electrical costs include the operation of the precoat pump, precoat mixer, holding
3-16
pumps, and the increased loading on the condensate pumps due to the added pressure
drop across the polisher system.
Significant fixed operating costs include the electricity demand for the precoat
equipment, holding pumps, larger condensate pumps, maintenance costs for the
condensate polisher system, and additional labor for operation of the condensate
polisher system.
Operating Costs for a Retrofit Mixed Bed Polisher
The first year operating cost of the base full-flow 4700 gpm mixed bed condensate
polishing system to be installed as a retrofit plant as described earlier is presented in
Table 3-11.
Table 3-11
First Year Cost of Operation for a Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System Installed as
a Retrofit (360 MWe)
Variable O&M
Regeneration water $ 17,000 $ 3,000
Cycle chemical (NH3) $ 62,000 $ 21,000
Regeneration chemicals $ 20,000 $ 3,000
Resin replacement $ 24,000 $ 24,000
Electricity $ 81,000 $ 27,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $204,000 $ 78,000
Fixed O&M
Electrical demand $ 18,000 $ 18,000
Maintenance $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Labor $ 8,000 $ 8,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $ 36,000 $ 36,000
First Year Cost of Operation $240,000 $114,000
3-17
Table 3-11, for the mixed bed system as a retrofit, was developed using the same unit
costs as used in Table 3-9, for the mixed bed system in a new power plant. The differing
operating conditions between the plants have been taken into account. For example, the
retrofit plant has a lower condensate flow rate, and therefore, has lower demineralized
water demand and lower electricity costs.
Operating Costs for a Retrofit Powdered Resin Polisher
The first year operating cost of the base full-flow 4700 gpm powdered resin condensate
polishing system to be installed in a retrofit plant as described earlier is presented in
Table 3-12.
Table 3-12
First Year Cost of Operation for a Powdered Resin Condensate
Polishing System Installed as a Retrofit (360 MWe)
Item Cost
Variable O&M
Regeneration water $ 3,000
Cycle chemical (NH3) $ 4,000
Precoat material $ 66,000
Electricity $ 42,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $115,000
Fixed O&M
Electrical demand $ 4,000
Maintenance $ 5,000
Labor $ 4,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $ 13,000
First Year Cost of Operation $128,000
3-18
Table 3-12, for the powdered resin system as a retrofit, was developed using the same
unit costs as used in Table 3-10, for the powdered resin system in a new power plant.
The differing operating conditions between the plants have been taken into account.
Benefit of Condensate Polishing
The benefits of condensate polishing are related to the improvement in steam cycle
water chemistry that it provides. Some of the benefits of polishing are long term in
nature, such as reduced chemical cleaning frequency, while other benefits such as
reduced unit startup times, are more immediate. The use of condensate polishers can
result in the following benefits:
• Improves unit reliability and availability.
• Reduces frequency of boiler chemical cleaning.
• Reduces number of boiler tube failures.
• Reduces turbine maintenance related to steam purity.
• Allows faster startups and helps to achieve full load more quickly (also light oil fuel
savings for heavy oil plants).
• Provides protection against condenser tube leaks.
• Improves turbine efficiency from fewer turbine deposits.
• Allows continued operation of the unit through peak demand periods during a
minor condenser tube leak and allows for controlled shutdown during a major
condenser tube leak.
• Reduces replacement power costs caused by water chemistry related forced outages.
• Reduces boiler blowdown with the resultant decrease in makeup requirements and
energy losses.
• Lower fuel costs related to higher heat transfer efficiency associated with cleaner
boiler tubes.
Some of the benefits of condensate polisher listed above are quantified in Tables 3-13
and 3-14 in terms of first year cost savings. Other benefits such as reduced boiler tube
failures, reduced turbine maintenance, condenser tube leak protection, and lower fuel
costs have not been quantified. However, those benefits all contribute to improved
availability, which is shown as a cost savings benefit in the tables. The costs shown in
the tables are for the same 440 MWe new installation and the 360 MWe retrofit
described earlier and are based on the plants operating at 100% load.
3-19
Table 3-13
First Year Benefits for a Condensate Polishing System Installed with a
New Plant (440 MWe)
Item Condensate Polisher Benefit
Variable Benefits
Reduced blowdown $ 59,000
Reduced turbine losses $ 77,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $136,000
Fixed Benefits
Reduced chemical cleanings $ 10,000
Improved availability $528,000
Faster warm startups $ 53,000
Faster cold startups $ 53,00
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $644,000
First Year Benefits $780,000
Table 3-14
First Year Benefits for a Condensate Polishing System Installed as a
Retrofit (360 MWe)
Variable Benefits
Reduced blowdown $ 46,000
Reduced turbine losses $ 63,000
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $109,000
Fixed Benefits
Reduced chemical cleanings $ 8,000
3-20
Table 3-14
First Year Benefits for a Condensate Polishing System Installed as a
Retrofit (360 MWe)
Improved availability $432,000
Faster warm startups $ 43,000
Faster cold startups $ 43,00
Subtotal (July 1994 $) $526,000
First Year Benefits $635,000
Boiler Blowdown
Better quality condensate resulting from the use of condensate polishers offers a better
boiler quality control and reduces the need for boiler blowdown. Reduced boiler
blowdown in turn reduces cycle makeup requirements and boiler energy losses.
The benefits associated with reduced boiler blowdown shown in the tables are based on
reduction of blowdown from 1 to 0.25% for units with condensate polishing. The cost of
blowdown is assumed to be $2.50 per 1000 gallons.
Chemical Cleaning Frequency
The filtering ability of both mixed bed and powdered resin condensate polishers helps
to reduce the transport of corrosion products to the boiler. The ion exchange capacity
provided by condensate polishing removes hardness, chlorides, and other harmful
constituents which could lead to scaling or corrosion in the boiler. This removal of
material translates into less corrosion and scaling of boiler heat transfer surfaces and
reduces the frequency of boiler chemical cleaning required. Decreased frequency of
chemical cleaning means less handling of boiler cleaning chemicals, less wastewater to
be disposed of, and can mean greater unit availability.
Chemical cleaning is assumed to cost $100,000 for the retrofit and $120,000 for the larger
new plant per cleaning. It was assumed for this analysis that without condensate
polishing, chemical cleanings occur once every 4 years, whereas it was assumed that a
properly designed and operated condensate polisher would extend the time period to 6
years.
3-21
Startup Time
Faster unit starts from the cold and warm condition are possible with the use of
condensate polishing. Materials loosened during the shutdown and subsequent start of
the unit are removed from the condensate by the polisher. Since the condensate polisher
removes silica, the time spent at the silica hold point is minimized. Faster startup results
in the use of less replacement power because a unit can be brought up to full load
quicker. The benefits of faster startups for condensate polishers were assumed to be 24
hours saved at the 50% load silica hold point during a cold startup and 6 hours saved
during a warm startup. One cold startup and four warm startups are assumed per year
with a differential replacement power cost of $0.01/kWh.
Improved Unit Availability
Improved unit availability results from the improved steam cycle water chemistry
produced by condensate polishers. Improved unit availability translates into lesser
requirement demand for replacement power. Fewer forced outages mean less time that
older, less efficient units need to be operated or less time that power must be purchased
from outside sources, potentially at premium prices. At a differential replacement
power cost of $0.01/kWh, just a few days of improved availability can translate to
substantial cost savings. The cost benefits shown in the above tables for condensate
polishers are based on improving unit availability by 5 days per year at full load.
Improved unit availability is perhaps the greatest benefit of condensate polishing and
will be studied further in the cost benefit comparison section.
Improved Turbine Efficiency
Turbine efficiency can be improved with proper use of condensate polishing. Turbine
maintenance due to steam purity can be lessened by the use of condensate polishing.
Protection of the boiler from suspended and dissolved solids diminishes the potential
for both mechanical and volatile carryover into the steam. Improved condensate-
feedwater quality reduces the potential for impurities entering the steam from the
attemperating spray water. The result is a decrease in problems with turbine corrosion
damage as well as a reduction in turbine fouling.
Fouling of the steam turbine results in turbine efficiency loss. One study showed that
1
condensate polishing can reduce turbine power losses by 0.2% per year . A series of
steam path audits can be used to help justify installation of a polisher as a retrofit in an
existing plant. The above table shows the first years’ annual benefits of this improved
efficiency.
3-22
Condenser Tube Leakage
The ion exchange capability of mixed bed condensate polishers provide protection of
the boiler and steam turbine from the potentially severe corrosion and/or scaling
resulting from condenser tube leaks. While powdered resin condensate polishers do
provide some protection against condenser tube leaks, the ion exchange capacity is so
small that only very small tube leaks can be tolerated. Depending on the size of the tube
leak and the quality of the circulating water, either type of polisher should allow an
orderly shutdown of the unit. Mixed bed polishing allows continued operation during
peak electricity demand with moderate condenser tube leakage. Depending on the
timing and size of the leak, it may be possible to extend the operation of the unit until
load reduction or shutdown to repair the unit is more convenient. Although not
quantified directly in the above tables, the benefits of protection from condenser tube
leaks can be quantified in terms of additional days of availability.
Boiler Tube Failures
As discussed under Chemical Cleaning Frequency, the use of condensate polishing

decreases scaling and corrosion in the boiler. Reduced boiler tube scaling and decreased
formation of corrosion products limit the development of hot spots which can lead to
tube failures. Lower levels of corrosive species diminish the frequency that boiler tubes
are damaged from corrosion. Although a benefit, no attempt was made to quantify the
savings that condensate polishing would provide by reducing the frequency of boiler
tube failures.
Lower Fuel Costs
Fuel costs to produce a given amount of power are lowered with the use of polishing.
Lower blowdown flow and cleaner boiler tubes and turbine blades result in lower
energy losses and higher heat transfer and power conversion efficiencies. No attempt
was made to quantify the benefits associated with lower fuel costs.
Condensate Polishing Economic Justification--Cost Versus Benefit
Condensate polishing is economically justified if the benefits associated with polishing

exceed the capital and operating costs of polishing. Comparison of benefits versus costs
are performed on a life cycle basis. The example new power plant installation is
assumed to have a life of 40 years and the example retrofit a life of 20 years. The load
models and life cycle calculations are summarized in Appendix C. Annual fixed charges
are calculated for the capital costs, and annual levelized costs are calculated for the
operating costs and benefits. The comparison of costs versus benefits for the mixed bed
polisher at a new plant operating in the hydrogen cycle is as follows. The benefits are
3-23
based upon improved availability, improved turbine efficiency, reduced boiler

blowdown, reduced chemical cleaning frequency and reduced startup times:
Annual Levelized Benefits of Polishing $1,361,000

Annual Fixed Charges on Capital ($440,000)
Annual Levelized Operating Costs ($358,000)
Differential Total Annual Savings $ 563,000
The benefits of condensate polishing used in the above cost comparison are based on
the first year benefits shown in Tables 3-13 and 3-14. It should be noted that actual
benefits and the resulting savings would be greater than shown above because of those
benefits that were not quantified, condenser tube leak operation, minimizing boiler tube
failures, and lower fuel costs.
Some of the basis and assumptions used to determine the costs and benefits shown in
Tables 3-13 and 3-14 may not fit all utilities’ situations. For this reason, sensitivity
analyses were performed on the major factors affecting benefits. In the sensitivity
analyses, the impact on the annual savings is shown as the basis, and assumptions are
varied. The sensitivity analyses consist of changing the differential replacement power
cost, the number of days of improved availability, the number of startups per year, and
improved turbine efficiency. The analyses also show the sensitivity of the break-even
point (where polishing is and is not economically justified) with changes in the
assumptions. The major fixed assumptions used to determine costs and benefits are
presented in Table 3-15.
Table 3-15
Major Fixed Assumptions
Assumed Value
Mixed Bed Mixed Bed

(Hydrogen (Ammonia Powdered
Parameter Cycle) Cycle) Resin
Days per regeneration/precoat per vessel @ 5 30 7

100% load
Electrical Demand Charge, $/kW 531 531 531
Boiler blowdown without polisher, % 1.00 1.00 1.00
Boiler blowdown with polisher, % 0.25 0.25 0.25
3-24
Table 3-15
Major Fixed Assumptions
Assumed Value
Mixed Bed Mixed Bed

(Hydrogen (Ammonia Powdered
Parameter Cycle) Cycle) Resin
Years between chemical cleaning without 4 4 4

polisher
Years between chemical cleaning with polisher 6 6 6
Time saved at hold point on warm starts with 6 6 6

polisher, h
Time saved at hold point on cold starts with 24 24 24

polisher, h
Cost Sensitivity to Availability and Replacement Power Cost
The estimated differential total annual cost has been compared with differential
replacement power costs for each polisher type. Figures 3-1 through 3-3 show the cost
sensitivity for new plant condensate polishers, and Figures 3-4 through 3-6 depict the
sensitivity for retrofit polishers. Curves are included on the figures for various assumed
days per year of increased unit availability. All other condensate polisher benefits are
held constant to the values given above in Table 3-15. The break-even point is shown by
the intersection of the zero Differential Total Annual Savings line and the selected
curve. For example, for a new plant with a mixed bed polisher operating in the
hydrogen cycle (Figure 3-1), assuming $0.01/kWh differential between the cost to
produce the power with the unit in question and the cost of replacement power, and
assuming 5 days increased unit availability over the course of the year due to the use of
the polisher, a cost savings of approximately $500,000 per year is estimated.
Sensitivity to Number of Starts per Year and Replacement Power Cost
Condensate polishers help save time on startup by minimizing the delay to achieve
proper boiler water chemistry prior to ramping up to full load. Figures 3-7 and 3-8
indicate the estimated differential total annual cost plotted against the number of cold
and warm starts per year. Figure 3-7 depicts the new plant polishers, and Figure 3-8
shows the curves for the retrofit polishers. The plots assume a different replacement
3-25
power cost of $0.01/kWh and the time savings for both hot and cold restarts. As can be
seen from examination of the figures, frequent starts have a significant impact on the
estimated total annual cost savings.
Figure 3-1 Sensitivity to Availability and Replacement Power Cost: New Plant Mixed Beds
3-26
Bed--Ammonia Cycle
3-27
Condensate Polisher for a New Plant
3-28
Mixed Beds
3-29
Mixed Bed--Ammonia Cycle
3-30
Condensate Polisher for a Retrofit Plant
3-31
Figure 3-7 Sensitivity to Number of Startups: New Plant Condensate Polisher
3-32
Figure 3-8 Sensitivity to Number of Startups: Retrofit Plant Condensate Polisher
3-33
Improved Turbine Efficiency
The base turbine efficiency value of 0.2% efficiency improvement value is relatively
conservative. Values up to 1.0% have been estimated1. Figures 3-9 and 3-10 show
differential annual savings based upon variation of the turbine efficiency improvement
postulated.
Conclusion
Increased unit availability and the resulting avoided cost of replacement power are the
single most significant benefits of condensate polishing. Increased efficiency and
reduced chemical cleanings are important benefits, but by themselves are unlikely to
economically justify condensate polishing.
The capital costs, operating costs, and benefits of condensate polishing described in
these guidelines are used to show the relative savings that different polishing systems
can provide. When a justification analysis is performed, the actual operating and
economic conditions of the power plant being studied must be used. The analysis must
use realistic plant load models and differential replacement power cost as these have a
major impact. Unique operating conditions and nontangible, difficult to quantify
benefits must also be considered in the justification analyses.
The application of the evaluation methods provided here to specific plant parameters is
provided in Chapter 4 under Roadmap for Condensate Polisher.
References
1. R. Devalois, T. Gilchrist, and K. Price. “Justification For The Retrofit Of A

Condensate Polishing System At Tri-State G&T’s Craig Station,” presented at the
EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, New Orleans, September 15-17, 1993.
3-34
Figure 3-9 Sensitivity to Reduced Turbine Efficiency Losses: New Plant Condensate
Polisher
3-35
Figure 3-10 Sensitivity to Reduced Turbine Efficiency Losses: Retrofit Plant Condensate
Polisher
3-36
4
CONDENSATE POLISHER GUIDELINES
Rationale for Guidelines
These guidelines were selected from industry experience, literature review, and
equipment manufacturers’ recommendations to provide users with the most effective
designs and methods for control and improvement of cycle chemistry by condensate
polishing. Industry experience was determined based upon plant visits and utility
surveys. The guidelines contained in EPRI TR-101942 are also contained in these
guidelines.
The objective of these guidelines is to help the utility control and implement water
quality guidelines for the appropriate type of plant with condensate polishing. This
section is broken into sections which include Design Guidelines, Operating Guidelines,
Resins, and Management Guidelines. Each one of these sections is divided into
subsections for deep bed and powdered resin systems. A final section, titled Road-map
for Condensate Polisher Justification gives economic models to be used in the
evaluation of specific condensate polishing applications which can be tailored to
individual circumstances.
Design Guidelines
This section contains recommendations for design of systems whether for retrofit or for
new units. These guidelines are general and flexible, intended to allow individual
customization of systems to suit the expected uses in the generating unit. The design
guidelines also provide what is believed to be the most economic usage of polishing,
when considering that the most important economic factor is long life with limited
maintenance of major generating unit components. Thus, some of the selections may
cost slightly more, but are selected because the improved performance is considered a
“good buy.”
The benefits of condensate polishing generally are best achieved with full-flow systems.
Partial flow systems also can be of significant benefit particularly during plant startups.
Selection of full or partial flow systems should be based on cost-benefit assessments
similar to those described in Chapter 3. In nuclear systems, additional emphasis will
have to be given to the corrosion impact of operating at reduced boiler water impurity
concentrations. For example, minimization and control of PWR steam generator ionic
4-1
Condensate Polisher Guidelines
concentration and ratios, must be considered. For fossil plants, reduced boiler water
and hence reduced steam impurities must be considered.
It must be remembered that partial flow systems do not provide the same level of
protection from condenser leakage and poor quality makeup. Plants with existing
partial flow designs should consider retrofitting these system with additional service
vessels to be able to achieve full-flow polishing capability. Plants with part-time
polishing should revise their operating practices to use polishing systems full time.
Systems should be provided with spare capability. The use of the spare capability is a
decision for each individual plant. Some plants, particularly BWRs, have adopted a
philosophy of using spare vessels for normal operation. Thus, normally the system
operates more conservatively than when the spare is off-line waiting to be used only for
regeneration or cleaning. This approach has resulted in improved water quality for
BWRs. Other plants place a spare vessel on-line when cleaning, regeneration, or
precoating is performed. Either operation is good practice. From a design standpoint,
the polishing system should be conservatively sized so that it is not necessary to open
the bypass valve in order to clean, regenerate, or precoat a vessel. Full condensate flow
should be polished at all times. This design philosophy allows the operator the option
of operating with the spare philosophy which best suits his plant or operation.
All condensate polishing systems should have bypass capability. The bypass should be
used only to continue to supply feedwater in the event of a malfunction of the
condensate polishing system.
A recycle system should be included in any condensate polishing system design. The
recycle system uses either a local pump or piping to direct effluent back to the
condenser.
Direct Polishing
Most United States experience is with condensate polishing service vessels directly in
the condensate path. Booster loop polishing is practiced outside the United States and
has some technical merits, particularly for the retrofit case. Typical booster loop
polishing is shown on Figure 4-1. The booster loop provides inherent, failsafe bypass in
the event of failure. Additionally, the booster loop operates at a constant flow, thus
eliminating any flow perturbations which can cause difficulties with filtration
capabilities. Disadvantages include the cost and complexity of an additional set of
pumps
4-2
Mixed Bed Polishing
Vessel Sizing
For general application condensate polishing, systems should be sized using a

hydraulic flux rate of 50 gpm/ft2 (35 L/s per M2). This criterion is used to determine the
combination of the number of vessels and the size of flow capability of each vessel.
Generally, a minimum of two vessels is suggested. The minimum number of vessels
will generally yield a minimum equipment cost. A minimum bed depth of 3 feet is
suggested. Deeper beds and leakage design criteria should be considered in sizing of a
system if highly brackish or seawater is used for cooling water. Vessel diameters are
generally limited to 14 feet by normal shipping limitations.
4-3
Figure 4-1 Typical Booster Loop Polishing Diagram
Vessel Design
Service vessels should be constructed according to the ASME Section VIII Code for
Unfired Pressure Vessels unless special nuclear application requires Section III. The
4-4
design pressure for the vessels should be the highest pressure the vessel can be exposed
to, generally the condensate pump shutoff head.
Cylindrical vessels should be specified with flanged and dished heads, again according
to the ASME Code. Cylindrical vessels are strongly preferred unless design pressure
requires using spherical vessels. The cylindrical shape is preferred because it best
matches the desired flow path between the inlet header and the underdrain without a
large amount of ineffective resin. As the pressure rating of the vessels increases,
spherical vessels may become significantly more cost-effective than cylindrical vessels.
As design pressures approach 300 psi, the cost impact of vessel geometry should be
evaluated. If spherical vessels must be used because of design pressure requirements,
the designer should consider the volume of resin which is ineffective because of the
spherical shape. The effective resin volume would be in the shape of a cylinder between
the inlet distributor and the underdrain.
All connections to service vessels should be with flanged nozzles. Use of pad type
flanges should be limited to sight ports only.
Vessel Design Features
Ion exchange resin is corrosive to carbon steel vessels. In order to protect the service
vessels, rubber linings are extensively used. Stainless steel vessels have been used to a
limited extent, generally in the nuclear industry. Rubber-lined vessels, using 3/16 inch
thick linings, are suggested and the equipment manufacturer’s standard should
normally be used. Equipment manufacturers should be required to justify their
standard linings and should be required to provide at least 5 year warranties for linings.
The use of the manufacturer’s standard will allow that manufacturer to use a familiar
applicator and the applicator to use a familiar material for lining. ASTM standards for
application of rubber lining should be required in vessel specifications.
Vessel design should use a header and lateral inlet distributor and underdrain.
Underdrain strainers should be well screen design. The underdrain should be
supported by a flat bottom. The false bottom and underdrain support should be rugged
to withstand all anticipated flow and pressure transients. Provisions must be made to
resin transfer under the laterals so that the header and lateral network do not impede
the removal o f resin from the service vessels.
Sight glasses are desirable for confirming resin transfers and viewing underdrains and
internals. Leakage, lack of transparency (corrosion product films and resins stick to the
inside of the glasses), and lack of adequate lighting are all problems with sight glasses.
If chosen, service vessels should be equipped with at least two sight glasses, one in the
top to confirm the resin level and one at the bottom to allow inspection of the
underdrains and to ensure that resin removal is complete. Three sight glasses, equally
spaced around the vessel with one sight glass on the top to allow a strong lighting
4-5
source was the most comprehensive recommendation received. Sight glasses should be
arranged so that they are flush with the interior and do not form any pocket or ledges
to collect resin or crud. Elimination of sight glasses may be considered for high-pressure
units and for BWRs where access to the polisher vessels is very limited.
Each vessel should be equipped with a strainer on the effluent. The main purpose of the
strainer is to act as an emergency device to prevent massive loss of resin not to prevent
the passage of small resin particles or fines. Strainer elements should be ruggedly
constructed, as with underdrain strainers, a well screen or wedge wire design is
suggested. The strainer body is of unlined carbon steel construction. The mesh size can
be made too fine and result in plugging and unnecessary maintenance problems.
Resin traps should incorporate the following features:
1. Clean resin trap differential pressure at rated flow rate of less than 2 psi.
2. Trap strainer element capable of withstanding a differential pressure equal to

system operating pressure to prevent strainer rupture and release of collected resin
and corrosion products.
3. Strainer element capable of retaining 60 mesh resin beads.
4. Backwash and drain connections for “in situ” strainer element cleaning.
5. Easy removal of strainer element for cleaning or replacement.
Service Vessel Control Systems. Controls for the service vessel functions may be both
centralized in the main control room and local for local operations. Regeneration and
resin transfer controls should always be local so that operators can observe transfer and
regeneration steps. Controls for putting vessels on-line or taking them off-line may be
located in the main control room. Sufficient intelligence (differential pressure, vessel
flow rates, and effluent quality information) should also be available to main control
room personnel. The location of control functions can vary depending upon whether
chemistry personnel are always available at the plant.
Service Vessel Piping. Polishing influent and effluent piping materials should be carbon
steel or alloy steel, consistent with the piping used for the remainder of the condensate
system. Stainless steel has been used between the cation exchanger prefilter and the
mixed bed. Polypropylene lined piping or stainless steel should be used for resin
transfer, chemical wastes, and wastewater service. The use of corrosion-resistant
effluent piping may be considered if frequent operation in the hydrogen cycle is
anticipated.
Service Vessel Valves. Butterfly valves with pneumatic or electric motor operators
should be used for the influent and effluent because of the large flows and piping sizes
used in condensate polishing It is important that air or electrical system failure not close
4-6
influent or effluent valves and that a condensate pathway is always provided in the
event of such a failure. Motor-operated valves have the advantage of failure in place.
Dual coil solenoids and operator lockup mechanisms are provided for failsafe measures
on air-operated valves.
Ball valves or plug valves with electric or pneumatic operators are used for resin
transfer, wastewater drain, sluice water, vent and air lines. It is important that resin
transfer and waste valves be full port valves.
Regeneration Vessels
Virtually all those surveyed (both manufacturers and users) used external regeneration
vessels with their condensate polishing systems. The typical system included three
regeneration vessels.
The selection of the number of regeneration vessels and the regeneration system is
dependent upon whether the utility intends to operate beyond ammonia break. If
operation beyond ammonia break is to be used, then special features to minimize the
potential adverse impact of this operation will be needed. Many of these features are
vendor-specific and require specific support equipment to use the specific process. As
shown in the economics section, Chapter 3, the addition of these systems is relatively
inexpensive, with the system cost increase at around 10% of total equipment price.
There are additional operating requirements associated with operation beyond
ammonia break which include higher levels of surveillance and greater operator care.
The user must be willing to expend this level of care. Otherwise, without proper
operation and surveillance, operation beyond ammonia break carries risks of excessive
ionic leakage and resultant cycle equipment damage. Operation beyond ammonia break
is more fully discussed later in this chapter.
In order to enjoy the equipment pricing benefits of competitive bidding, it is necessary

to allow the option of several different systems. The designer must be aware of the
workings of each system and assure that the use of the alternative systems results in
comparable performance.
Regeneration Vessel Design. Regeneration vessels like the service vessels, should be
constructed according to ASME Section VIII, unfired pressure vessel code. These should
be rubber-lined vessels with the same lining as service vessels have. Regeneration vessel
underdrains should generally use Type 316 stainless steel header and lateral designs.
Header and laterals are used for the regenerant inlet depending on the vessel size.
Underdrain design should consider completeness of resin transfer, with 99.9% removal
as a target, as well as proper fluid distribution.
Sight glasses are to be used to verify proper resin cleaning, separation, regeneration,
and transfer steps. For the most comprehensive observation capability, sight glasses
4-7
should be located to observe expanded beds, tops of settled beds, interfaces, and vessel
bottoms. Two sight glasses 180° apart or three sight glasses 120° part at the same
elevation, provide good observation of the entire bed. Rectangular shaped sight glasses
that span the elevation to be observed are desirable for low-pressure systems, which
should be applicable for all regeneration systems. To improve visibility, a lighted sight
glass can be added in the top head.
Resin sample valves should be included on all regeneration vessels.
Regeneration Components. The typical regenerant application equipment should

include acid and caustic bulk storage tanks, positive displacement pumps for caustic
metering, positive displacement or centrifugal pumps for acid, dilution water heater,
temperature control (blend) valve, and dilute regenerant concentration (conductivity)
monitors.
Sulfuric acid should be stored in an unlined, horizontal storage tank. Caustic should
also be stored in bulk storage tanks. Epoxy or vinyl linings are often used to limit iron
contamination of the caustic. Concentrated bulk regenerants are pumped, most often by
positive displacement pumps, to in-line dilution systems
In-line dilution of regenerants should be used for dilute regenerant preparation. For
positive displacement, diaphragm metering pumps should be used. In some instances
concentrated regenerant flows are high enough to make positive displacement pumps
impractical. In these cases centrifugal pumps can be used. In general, design should be
based upon use of a constant flow rate of concentrated regenerant being routed to a
dilution tee. The flow of dilution water should be regulated with a pressure regulator so
that suction conditions do not vary the flow rate of the dilution water, thus causing the
concentration to vary. A flow switch should be present in the dilution water line to
assure that dilution water flow is established prior to the start of concentrated
regenerant flow. This is desired as a safely measure and to minimize the chance of
application of concentrated regenerant to the resin or the regeneration vessel. The
concentration should be measured with conductivity instrumentation to assure
relatively constant regenerant strength. Should the conductivity exceed preset high or
low limits, the control system should alarm for operator attention to determine the
problem. High alarms should stop regenerant pumps.
Caustic application equipment should include a bulk storage tank for 50% caustic with
two 100% positive displacement metering pumps. Caustic is applied at concentrations
of 3 to 6%. Concentration is controlled by controlling dilution water flow rate and
metering the regeneration flow rate. Conductivity cells are used to monitor and assure
that the concentration is in the proper range. Caustic dilution water should be heated to
about 180°F with a water heater and blended to 95° to 120°F for application.
4-8
While inline dilution systems are generally practiced in the US, systems using
educators, measuring tanks, dilute regenerant tanks and educators are satisfactorily
used elsewhere in the world. Such systems avoid the use of metering pumps.
Regeneration controls should not be fully automatic but should require some operator
interaction to either initiate a sequence or verify that a step has occurred. For resin
transfers it is particularly important to have operator verification in order to minimize
cross-contamination of resins. Capability to allow operator intervention to prolong
regeneration steps is suggested. Controls should allow easy adjustment of regeneration
levels in order to allow proper response to changing operating conditions. For instance,
following periods of condenser leakage, higher regeneration levels should be used.
Regeneration system valves are usually plastic-lined diaphragm type with diaphragm
air actuators. Ball or plug valves with pneumatic operators are used for resin transfer.
Regenerant Reuse. Regenerant reuse makes use of the simple fact that regenerant
chemical concentrations are generally required to provide a driving fore to reverse ion
exchange equilibria and that a very small amount of the regenerant chemical is actually
used. In Chapter 1, the equilibrium of ion exchange was explained in detail. Generally,
the resins have the least selectivity for the regenerant and readily release their hydrogen
or hydroxyl ion in favor of the ion from the solution. This unfavorable selectivity is
overcome by exposing the resin to relatively high concentrations of the hydroxyl or
hydrogen ion in the regeneration solution.
Regenerant reuse can be accomplished in a simple manner with a solution collection

tank and regenerant reuse pumps. The equipment simply receives the spent regenerant
from the last half of a regeneration so that it can be reused for the first half of the
following regeneration. Fresh regenerant is prepared by the regeneration equipment
and applied normally during the second half of the regeneration process. This fresh
regenerant is again collected by the reuse equipment for the next cycle. A regenerant
reuse equipment is schematically shown on Figure 4-2.
The net effect on the overall regeneration is to reduce the amount of regenerant used.
Savings of about half of the regenerant are typical. The regenerant reuse tank needs to
be sized to collect the amount of regenerant plus a reasonable amount of free-board.
Pumps need to be sized to provide the regenerant and the desired dilute regenerant
rate. Controls need to be included to operate both the reuse equipment as well as the
fresh regeneration equipment. Control systems also need options to allow selection of
reuse or all fresh chemical regenerations. Regeneration using all fresh regenerant would
be desirable under certain circumstances such as recovery from a condenser leak.
4-9
Figure 4-2 Regenerant Reuse Diagram
The motive for regenerant reuse is to save money on regenerant consumption and to
save on wastewater generation. While the cost for regenerant reuse equipment is not
great, the savings of regenerant consumption alone generally does not justify the
4-10
purchase of the equipment. Regenerant reuse was once considered desirable for BWRs
where regeneration wastes must be disposed of as radwaste. This practice did not fully
develop because of problems with disposal of spent regenerants. As noted in Chapter 1,
BWRs now merely dispose of the spent resin without regenerating. Station-unique
wastewater disposal situations may justify the consideration of regenerant reuse.
Consideration must be given to the station wastewater disposal scheme when

considering regenerant reuse. It would not make sense to save caustic on the
regeneration, only to have to add caustic to produce a dischargable neutralized waste.
While caustic is the most expensive and thus makes the most sense to reuse, most
wastewaters discharged from typical fossil plant condensate polishing systems need
additional caustic to neutralize the wastewater.
Other drawbacks include the potential contamination of the regenerant. If a station is

operating beyond ammonia break and is concerned about regenerant purity in order to
achieve a polished effluent of consistently high purity, then the money saved from
regenerant reuse may be a false economy. For plants operating beyond ammonia break,
regeneration is probably not sufficiently frequent to justify regenerant reuse. Once-
through units using oxygenated treatment have reduced regeneration frequencies so
that regenerant reuse is not economically justified. Regenerant reuse for the cation
vessel of cation-mixed bed systems might be economical depending upon the station
wastewater disposal circumstances. The cation bed is regenerated fairly frequently,
because of the amine load, and there is not the great need for very high levels of
regenerant purity. Systems using cation-anion-cation systems could also consider reuse
of the spent acid from the final action reused in the initial cation vessel.
While regenerant reuse is technically feasible and relatively simple, it is not frequently
practiced. None of the survey respondents indicated that they practiced regenerant
reuse. Possibly with future wastewater discharge restrictions, regenerant reuse will
become more economical.
Sodium/Sulfate Reduction Features. Successful operation beyond ammonia break

requires some additional design features which minimize the impacts of cross-
contamination of resin. These systems have been described in detail in Chapter 1. Many
of these systems are proprietary and thus are available only from one vendor. Such
systems are highly desirable if the user intends to operate beyond ammonia break. The
systems generally require additional capital cost, although the cost increases above the
cost of a base system are not great. These systems also add additional complexity to the
operation and often to the regeneration cost, particularly for those which add an
additional chemical. Greater care is required by both the operators and in chemistry
surveillance to successfully use these systems.
Users will have to decide whether they can justify the additional capital, operating,
maintenance, and surveillance costs that are necessary for ammonia cycle operation.
4-11
These costs plus the reduced operating cost would have to be compared with the
hydrogen cycle’s higher operating costs but simpler operation. In the event of
significant condenser leakage or failure of any part of the system and operations
necessary to successfully operate beyond ammonia break, the system should be able to
simply return to hydrogen cycle operation, until the problem can be corrected.
Hydrochloric Acid Usage. The most commonly used regenerant for cation resins used in
condensate polishing is sulfuric acid. It is effective, readily available in a concentrated
form (96-98%) at a reasonable cost and can be supplied at an acceptable quality.
Calcium sulfate precipitation that can interfere with the regeneration of cation resins
from cycle makeup treatment type demineralization systems is seldom a problem in the
regeneration of condensate polishing resins. Thus, sulfuric acid is a convenient,
effective, and economic acid for use in the regeneration of condensate polishing system
cation resins.
However, in the search for ever lower levels of impurities in the steam/water circuits of
power plants, attention must be given to the source of the impurities. Sulfate is
invariably found in polished water and often is present at higher concentrations than
the other commonly occurring impurities, chloride or sodium. Available evidence
indicates that much of this sulfate is derived from the sulfuric acid used in regeneration,
with several mechanisms contributing to the retention and subsequent leakage from the
mixed bed. These leakage mechanisms include the sulfate contamination of anion resins
caused by imperfect separation and the physical retention of traces of acid by the action
resins themselves.
The escape of sulfate from mixed beds is aided by the partial separation of the resins
following transfer to the service vessels. This separation results in cation resin rich
layers at the bottom of the service vessels. In many cases sulfate leakage is further
assisted by a deterioration in the kinetic performance of anion exchange caused by
fouling or aging of the resins. Such a deterioration in exchange kinetics has been shown
to affect sulfate exchange kinetics significantly more than chloride exchange kinetics as
illustrated on Figures 4-3 and 4-4. It must, however, be noted that while the acid used in
regeneration is considered to be the most important source of the sulfate contaminating
polished condensate, attention is now being directed to sulfate thought to be derived
from the action resins themselves.
Hydrochloric acid has several theoretical advantages over sulfuric acid but suffers the
disadvantage of increased cost, although the relative costs of the two acids vary
markedly from country to country. In the United States and United Kingdom,
hydrochloric acid roughly costs (on a chemical equivalent basis) about five times more
than sulfuric acid. This higher cost is partially offset by the higher regeneration
efficiency for hydrochloric acid. It also requires about three times the storage volume as
it is supplied as a 35% solution as opposed to sulfuric acid which is normally supplied
in 96 to 98% solution.
4-12
Figure 4-3 Anion Exchanger Resin Kinetics--New Resin (Source: Reference 9)
4-13
Figure 4-4 Anion Exchange Resin Kinetics--Used Resin (Source: Reference 9)
There are several materials of construction impacts to be considered when comparing

sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid. Sulfuric acid can be stored in steel tanks whereas
hydrochloric acid requires lined or plastic storage vessels and piping. Common
stainless steels are compatible with sulfuric acids but not with hydrochloric acid. Thus,
special materials may be needed for regeneration vessel internals, valve trim, wetted
instruments and instrument connections. Concentrated hydrochloric acid fumes can
also cause problems, both from a personnel standpoint as well as from corrosion caused
4-14
to nearby equipment. Thus, regeneration equipment for hydrochloric acid must be

tightly sealed.
As already mentioned, the use of hydrochloric acid as a regenerant avoids the possible
precipitation of calcium sulfate during action regeneration. For condensate polishing
applications, this is really of concern only to power stations which regularly experience
condenser leaks involving the ingress of high calcium content water. Of greater
importance for condensate polishing is the fact that hydrochloric acid does a better job
of iron oxide removal for cation resins. The surface iron oxide deposits can interfere
with the exchange kinetics of these resins.
There is wide experience in the use of hydrochloric acid in make up plants and in
ultrapure water installations. It is extensively used on condensate polishing plants in
Germany, Japan, India, and other countries. It is therefore well established and
procedures governing its safe storage and application fully documented. For those
condensate polishing plants aiming to produce the highest possible quality of polished
condensate, there appears to be some effluent quality benefits from the use of
hydrochloric acid. Obviously, there are costs and design drawbacks which must also be
considered.
Powdered Resin Polishing
Powder resin polishing systems are less generic than mixed bed systems and more of
the features of these systems are proprietary or are at least specific to a single vendor.
System features mentioned above apply to powdered resin systems. These include
sizing for full-flow, the use of spare vessels, and the design of bypass valve systems
Condensate polishing systems using powdered resin filter/demineralizers should also
include flow-balancing systems. Flow-balancing throttles the effluent of each on-line
exchanger so that the flow is equal to all exchangers. The objective of this is to balance
the load (both particulate and ionic) to the exchangers so that premature exhausting of
the exchanger with the lowest pressure drop does not occur.
Suppliers have strongly influenced the designs of the systems and therefore, design
features tend to be proprietary. Additionally, some of the design features are unique to
vendors because of their element or vessel design.
Vessel Sizing
Information provided above the number of vessels in the condensate polishing system
applies equally well to powdered resin condensate polishing. Sufficient septa area
should be provided to allow normal condensate flow to be treated at a flux rate no
higher than 3.0 gpm/ft2 (2.1 L/s per M2). Some special nuclear applications use lower
4-15
flows around 2.5 gpm/ft2 (1.7 L/s per M2). Vessel height is as required by the
equipment supplier to incorporate the septa used with the vessel.
Vessel Design Features. Designs of service vessels vary among suppliers. Service vessels
have either top or bottom tubesheet designs. Top tubesheet vessels should have
sufficient baffles to eliminate potential erosion of precoat on the septa by influent flow.
Bottom tubesheet designs should be supplied with distribution tubes to improve
distribution.
As with mixed bed vessels powdered resin service vessels should be constructed
according to the ASME Section VIII Code for Unfired Pressure Vessels. The design
pressure for the vessels should be the highest pressure the vessel could be exposed to,
generally the condensate pump shutoff head.
Cylindrical vessels should be specified with flanged and dished heads, again according
to the ASME Code. These vessels have relatively smaller diameters, thus the vessels are
virtually always cylindrical. A removable head or large top manway is required to
allow installation and service of the septa.
Powdered resin has very limited contact with the vessels in this type of system.
Therefore, these vessels do not necessarily require rubber linings. However, vessels
should be protected with coatings.
All connections to service vessels should be through flanged nozzles. Use of pad type
flanges should be limited to sight ports.
Sight Glasses. Sight glasses for viewing the lower end of the septa and near the upper
end of the septa are a desirable feature. Identification of poor precoats or precoat wash
off during operation can permit operational changes or promote design changes which
can lengthen septa life and improve polisher performance. Sight glasses should be
easily accessed and located away from interferences by valves, piping, pumps etc.
Precoat cracking also can occur during routine operation allowing leakage of dissolved
solids and septa fouling. After observance of a cracked precoat, timely application of a
new precoat or utilization of body feed will improve overall operation.
Backwash Systems
Air surge systems have allowed improved performance for bottom tubesheet systems
and should be supplied with all new systems of this type.
An effective wash procedure for the top tubesheet mounted septum units is as follows:
4-16
1. Backwash blow as normally done with compressed air at the top and opening fully
the bottom waste valve. (This usually cleans the lower portion of the elements, not
the top surfaces.)
2. Refill with water and drain slowly while applying air at the top. (This imparts a lot
of air volume to the top of the elements where extra cleaning is required.)
3. Repeat as experience requires to keep top portion of septa clean.
A similar procedure is also used with the bottom tubesheet vessels.
Precoat Systems
Either one or two tank precoat systems are acceptable; however, the system must be
arranged to introduce the resin slowly into the recirculation stream. Some early designs
just used a single tank with an initial charge of powdered resin. The initial charge
would deplete very quickly and would produce a porous precoat of marginal quality.
Units with this sort of system should consider retrofit of their precoating system. The
application of the resin in relatively low concentrations applied for a 20 to 30 minute
period is recommended. This may be done with either a single or a two tank system.
Valves
Butterfly valves with pneumatic or electric motor operators generally are used on
polisher influent and effluent lines. Dual coil solenoids and operator lockup
mechanisms should be provided for failsafe measures on air-operated valves. Motor-
operated valves generally fail in place, making them inherently failsafe.
Smaller valves for resin transfer, waste, air and vent valves, should be full port, quarter
turn ball, or plug valves. Again, these should be motor- or air-operated. Full port valves
are mandatory for resin transfer lines and also for nuclear applications where trapping
of solids is a major concern.
Piping
Polisher piping materials should be carbon steel or alloy steel consistent with the piping
used in the remainder of the condensate system. Sample lines should be stainless steel
except in special applications where metals are measured down to extremely low levels
in certain nuclear applications. In these applications, titanium should be considered.
Resin Strainers
Users opinions are mixed on the values of resin strainers. Strainers after each polisher
provide a second line of defense against resin ingress to the reactor or steam generators.
4-17
Strainer elements should be designed for easy removal, be capable of withstanding

differential pressures equal to the total system pressure drop, and preclude the passage
of powdered resin floc in the event of septum failure (≥150 micron particles).
The strainer screen differential pressure should be monitored so that the screen can be
cleaned, and precoat septa inspected, whenever an increase in pressure drop indicates
strainer plugging. Resin strainers are not capable of retaining fine resin particles that
may bleed through the screen.
Operating Guidelines
Mixed Bed
Startup and Low Load. Condensate polishers are used extensively in startup and low-
load situations. Flow through mixed bed polishers should be maintained between 25
(17.4) and 50 gpm/ft2 (35 L/s per M2) during startup to achieve reasonable filtration and
ion exchange. As flow increases during startups, vessels should be added to keep bed
flow rates at proper levels. Maintaining bed compaction is a consideration in
determining when vessels are removed or placed into service. Regenerations or
cleanings need to be performed quickly during startups in order to keep up with both
crud and ionic loading. Frequent regeneration and cleaning is also beneficial for
minimizing the potential for fouling.
Mixed bed systems should use hydrogen cycle operation during startups in order to
copy with contamination which may have entered the cycle during the shutdown, and
also to be able to cope with condenser air in-leakage and cooling water in-leakage
which seems to show a propensity to occur during startup operations.
Recycle. Condensate polishers should be equipped with recycle systems These recycle
systems should be used when placing vessels in service or prior to startup. The recycle
flow will compact the bed and prepare it for condensate flow. The other purpose of
recycle is to allow monitoring of each bed’s effluent quality as a final quality check to
assure that regeneration and rinses were performed properly. Recycle at about half of
full-flow capability (25 gpm/ft2) for about 10 minutes is recommended.
Condenser Leakage. Condenser leakage is detected by a properly designed and

executed cycle chemistry monitoring program. Elevated values for cation conductivity
and sodium are often used to indicate excessive condenser leakage. Other parameters
monitored include chloride, sulfate, and silica.
During condenser leakage events, the vessels should be operated in the hydrogen cycle.
Operation in the hydrogen cycle provides more flexibility and capacity to accept water
chemistry upsets, as discussed in Chapter 1. The ammonia cycle is not recommended
4-18
during periods of condenser leak as sodium leakage will likely occur. abnormal but
slight condenser leakage or air in-leakage may be handled by increasing the chemical
regenerant levels to compensate for the higher loading. For major condenser leaks, the
polisher system may be used to allow safe, orderly shutdown of the plant. As a part of
the plant water chemistry monitoring program, condenser leakage levels which are
considered tolerable for continued operation, as well as leakage levels which require
shutdown, should be defined for operating personnel, including main control room
personnel. The management commitment to allow the development and use of these
shutdown levels must be sought as a part of the support necessary to achieve a long-
term, successful water quality control program.
Flow-Balancing. Flow-balancing is desirable, but not absolutely necessary, to achieve

control of the flow to each individual vessel, independent of the differential pressure
across the individual vessels. Flow-balancing somewhat increases pumping energy
required.
Run Termination. Run termination criteria must be developed for each plant, again as a
part of the overall water quality control program. Termination criteria first depend
upon whether the station is operating in the hydrogen cycle or beyond ammonia (or
other amine) break. For stations operating in the hydrogen cycle, specific conductivity is
available as a run termination criterion.
Effluent cation conductivity and sodium are most often used and are generally reliable
criteria for run termination. Vessel throughput and, in some instances, time or schedule
are often used to terminate runs for either ammonia cycle or hydrogen cycle operation.
Time or schedule are usable for baseloaded plants which operate at relatively consistent
or predictable loads and thus relatively consistent or predictable flow rates. Vessel
throughput can be used for those plants where flow rates and load vary. Schedule can
be used for normal operations without condenser leakage to allow the utility to space
out regenerations on a desirable working or shift schedule.
In the absence of condenser leakage and when operating beyond ammonia break,
individual condensate polisher vessels can be operated for relatively long periods. In
fossil applications where regeneration is relatively inexpensive, it is suggested that runs
generally be limited to about 1 month.
Maintenance and Inspection. Routine annual maintenance and inspection programs are
strongly suggested. Although these plans must be customized for each plant, the
following elements should be included:
• Open each polisher and inspect the vessel internals and lining with resin removed.
Linings may be holiday tested. Carefully inspect one vessel underdrain by entering
the vessel if necessary.
• Sample and analyze resin from each resin charge.
4-19
• Follow manufacturer’s guidelines for lubrication and other maintenance for pumps,
valves, and other mechanical accessories.
• Check and adjust all operational sequences, flow rates and times.
Training. The importance of operator training cannot be over emphasized. Training for
new units should be performed by a combination of utility personnel and equipment
manufacturer personnel. Copies of initial training materials and records should be kept
for future training activities. On-the-job training is often used for operators that are new
to condensate polishing equipment. Such “hands on” training is a good practice if
supplemented with formalized training and use of documented operating procedures.
Formalized training is recommended and should be provided on a planned and

scheduled basis for all operators. Training records should be maintained and reviewed
in order to assure that operators are receiving proper routine training.
Operational incidents should be reviewed to assure that revisions to training plans and
documented operating procedures are made to cover such incidents.
Mixed Bed Regeneration Systems
All systems should be operated by well trained, dedicated operators. Mixed bed
regeneration is one of the most critical operations, and successful condensate polishing
operation depends strongly upon proper regeneration operations. It must be
recognized that good operation overcomes some equipment and design deficiencies,
but no equipment or design can overcome poor operation.
The minimization of cross-contamination is the single most important aspect of mixed

bed condensate polishing. Many of the operations which occur during transfer and
regeneration of the mixed bed resins have a significant impact upon the extent of cross-
contamination which occurs during regeneration. The amount of acceptable cross-
contamination as illustrated in Chapter 1 is significantly lower with ammonia/amine
cycle operation than with hydrogen cycle operation. Utilities should carefully consider
whether they can assure that the proper level of care necessary for successful
ammonia/amine cycle operation is in place. This is necessary in order to achieve the
economic benefits of amine cycle operations. Chapter 3 shows significant operating cost
benefit for operation beyond ammonia break.
Mixed beds operated in the H-OH mode can yield a very high quality of polished
water. Levels of impurities such as sodium, chloride, and sulfate of 0.1 - 0.3 ppb can be
consistently achieved even from plants with unsophisticated regeneration procedures.
With high efficiency separation and regeneration of the mixed bed resins, it is possible
to consistently achieve impurity levels less than 10 ppt.
4-20
In the absence of condenser leaks, the ionic load on anion resins is relatively low. It
consists mainly of sulfate from regeneration processing, carbonate from air in-leakage,
the traces of anionic impurities from makeup water or dosing chemicals. In contrast, the
load on the cation resin is relatively high in the majority plants because of ammonia or
other neutralizing amines.
Typically, the cation resin component of a polisher mixed bed operated in the hydrogen
cycle will become exhausted in several days to several weeks. The reaction is obviously
limited by the availability of H+ exchange sites and this depends upon the volume of
resin in the bed, the type of cation exchanger being used, and the extent of its
regeneration. It also depends directly upon the concentration of ammonia (or amine)
used in the cycle; for example, those condition to pH 9.2 have about 550 ppb ammonia
and those operating at pH 9.6 have about 2200 ppb ammonia in condensate. As the
available cation exchange capacity of the mixed bed is exhausted, ammonia (or amine)
along with impurities begin to leak into the final polished water.
Ammonia breakthrough is easily detected by conductivity so that the bed can be

removed from service for regeneration. A more conservative method of operating is to
take bed out of service for regeneration before the ammonia break by relying on
throughput (or schedule) to indicate the approach of exhaustion.
Hydrogen cycle operation is easy to understand, undemanding with respect to

separation and regeneration, capable of yielding a quality of polished water suitable for
most power plants, and possible to control with simple and reliable instrumentation. It
is possible to prepare water containing less than 10 ppt levels of the common ionic
impurities -- a water quality sought by the more demanding PWR-RSG operators, only
if the necessary attention is paid to design and operation of the mixed bed systems.
The disadvantages of hydrogen cycle form operation are mainly economic. The
frequent regenerations involve significant regenerant, water, power, and operator costs.
In addition, regenerant wastewater produced could become a problem given the ever
increasing environmental constraints.
Ammonia Form Operation. The conventional hydrogen cycle operation of condensate

polishing plants is, as already discussed, very effective. An alternative, involving lower
operating costs, is to operate beyond ammonia break which is also described as
“ammonia cycle” operation. It consists, quite simply, for continuing to operate a mixed
bed past the point at which all of the cation exchange sites have been converted to the
ammonia form, i.e., past the ammonia break. The bed now ceases to remove ammonia
from condensate , but can still offer a useful capacity for sodium removal in the event of
a condenser leak. Its capacity to remove anions, while lower than operation in the
hydrogen cycle, still remains at a useful level. In the ammonia cycle, beds have long
service runs with most operators selecting, for reasons of operational convenience, a
period of about 1 month. Some stations claim to be operating beds for 60 days and one
4-21
has run for up to 200 days. However, such extended runs must be used with care, as
iron fouling of the resin could possibly cause ion exchange kinetics problems.
Exhaustion of the anion resin from anionic impurities such as CO2 could also occur.
As shown earlier, ammonia form operation of polishers offers both operational

economies and convenience, but there are four disadvantages. The author of one of the
early papers (1969) on the techniques warned that substitution of ammonia form cation
resin exchange for hydrogen form cation exchange radically changes the characteristics
of a mixed bed5. This statement remains true and it is essential that any user or possible
user of ammonia form operation should understand the operational differences
between the hydrogen cycle and the ammonia cycle. The main characteristics are
summarized below:
1. Mixed bed resins operated in the ammonia (or amine) form leak 100 to 1,000 times
higher levels of impurities such as sodium and chloride than the same resins
operated in the hydrogen cycle. These in-service leakages can be reduced to
acceptable levels by ensuring that the resins are as effectively regenerated as
possible and this implies efficient separation of mixed beds before regeneration.
However, it must be stressed that impurity levels in effluent water from polishing
plants operated in the ammonia cycle are always higher than can be obtained from
the same resins operated in the hydrogen cycle.
2. This effect of higher equilibrium leakage when a mixed bed operating in the
ammonia cycle is immediately obvious when the bed is operated past the ammonia
break. In most cases there is a sharp increase in the level of sodium in polished
water, which then falls over 5 to 10 days, assuming constant pH conditions, to a new
steady-state level which is significantly higher than that seen during operations in
the hydrogen cycle. The size of this sodium “blip” varies from plant to plant and
depends upon the pH of operation and the sodium level on the resin as it was
operated past the ammonia break. With less effective regeneration procedures,
and/or in-service pickup of sodium, significantly larger sodium surges can be
expected, with some stations reporting peaks of 5 ppb or even higher. The steady-
state leakage of anionic impurities also increases after the ammonia break.
3. The sodium surge in ammonia cycle is caused by the cation and anion resins’
capacity for impurities being lower than in the hydrogen cycle. This ammonia form
capacity behavior is complex but depends mainly upon the pH of operation and the
level of impurity input. It decreases with increasing pH, and increases with the level
of impurity input, as illustrated by Figure 4-5. It has important consequences
because under conditions of high impurity input, the capacity for removal of sodium
can be relatively high but then falls as the impurity input falls. Thus, in the situation
of an intermittent condenser leak, it is possible for ammonia form resins to first
remove sodium ions and then, when inputs levels fall, to begin to release them
again, i.e., to “throw” sodium. Such an impurity throw can be likened to elution
4-22
effects seen in chromatography with impurity waves gradually traveling through

the bed. The results obtained in column experiments modeling ammonia form
operation at pH 9.6 clearly show this sodium throw behavior and the way in which
sodium levels at the outlet of the bed slowly increase. The bed had previously
treated a sodium input of 350 ppb for 40 hours, Figure 4-66. On actual condensate
polishing plants the time taken for the water quality at the outlet of the bed to
deteriorate to an unacceptable level depends upon the size of the condenser leak,
operating conditions and on the plant design. The factors controlling sodium
behavior include leak size, pH, flow rate, temperature, the ratio of resin used, and
the mass of sodium held by the resins. Thus, sodium taken up by ammonia form
beds should not be regarded as being permanently removed but rather as being
delayed.
In some cases, this delay will give operators of an ammonia form plant a short but
adequate time to take remedial action. It is suggested that if a condenser leak occurs,
and if it is decided that it can be contained by condensate polishing rather than a
controller shutdown, action should be initiated to systematically replace all the
ammonia form beds which have become contaminated with freshly regenerated
beds and to revert to hydrogen cycle operation until the leak is repaired.
4. The capacity that ammonia form beds show for impurities depends, as already
discussed, on the pH of operation and the concentration of the impurity being
exchanged. It also depends upon the relevant selectivity shown by the resin for the
impurity. Hence, the capacity of ammonia form beds will be very low for silica and
the weak organic acids that are frequently found in steam/water circuits as anion
resins show a low selectivity for these impurities.
If the behavior and constraints of ammonia form condensate polishing bed are
understood and suitable condensate polisher operating and surveillance procedures are
in place, then it is possible to attain the economic advantages of ammonia cycle
operation while still offering protection to the steam/water cycle at selected units.
4-23
Figure 4-5 Equilibrium Sodium Capacity as a Function of pH
Regeneration System Operations
Operation beyond ammonia break should include facilities for minimizing the
potentially adverse impact of such operation. These facilities should include one or
4-24
more of the techniques already described for improving separation and for purifying
resins after regeneration.
Figure 4-6 In-Bed Sodium Concentrations Profile (Source: Reference 10)
Operator-initiated automatic systems with hold points and witness points are suggested
for all condensate polishing control systems. Hold points allow operators to observe
that transfers have been completely accomplished and that resin levels are proper for
subsequent steps. Proper levels are highly important for achieving proper resin
transfers and subsequent regeneration. The use of available sight glasses to assure
proper levels should be impressed upon operators. Programmable logic controller
4-25
(PLC) based control systems are recommended for the flexibility in implementing resin
transfer and regeneration procedures.
Water temperatures should be checked prior to backwashes in order to compensate for

the temperature changes which can significantly impact both cleaning and separation
backwashes. Acid and caustic concentrations should be checked by conductivity
instrumentation during the regeneration steps.
Air scrubbing of the mixed resins should be practiced in the cation regeneration tank
prior to separation steps. The cation vessel should be drained to a water level of 2 to 3
inches (5 to 7.5 cm) above the resin bed and scrubbed with an airflow rate of 6.5 to 11.5
scfm/ft2 (2 to 3.5 standard m3/m2-min) of vessel cross-sectional area. Corrosion
products are flushed out of the resin with water that flows from the bottom to the top of
the vessel during the separation backwash.
To transfer anion resin from the top of the cation layer in a conventional separation
vessel, the cation/anion interface level should be located approximately 3 inches (8 cm)
below the cation vessel anion transfer collector.
1. Transfer bulk of anion resin to anion vessel with sluice water entering the top of the
cation vessel.
2. Backwash resin in cation vessel for 15 minutes to obtain maximum permissible bed
expansion. Flows of 12 to 17 gpm/ft2 (490 to 690 L/m2-min) may be desirable.
3. Allow bed to gravity settle.
4. Transfer anion resin by applying sufficient upflow (2 to 5 gpm/ft2 or 80 to 200 L/m2-

min) through the cation resin to maintain a level interface and lift the resin interface
to the level of the anion transfer collector. Sluice water should be supplied from the
top of the cation vessel as needed.
5. Repeat steps 2 through 4 as many times as required to transfer the anion resin
without carryover of cation resin.
The first transfer of the main body of the anion resin, while the interface is 2 to 4 inches
(5 to 10 cm) below the transfer collector, minimizes cation resin contamination of the
anion resin. The vigorous backwash before additional transfers improves separation of
large anion beads from the cation resin, levels the interface, and washes resin fines out
the top of the vessel. Upflow after the first transfer fluidizes the cation resin and raises
the interface to the anion transfer collector level. Fluidizing the cation resin maintains a
level of interface during the transfer, giving optimum separation. After the cation resin
is allowed to settle, the separation should be checked visually to verify that fluidized
anion resin does not remain in the cation vessel after the final transfer.
Adjustment of the backwash flow rate to give the maximum bed expansion allowed by
the cation vessel freeboard is recommended (preferably 100% of the total resin volume).
4-26
Typical backwash flow rates are 50 to gpm/ft2 (200 to 410 L m2-min) and should be
maintained for 20 to 30 minutes. If the backwash water still contains particulate
corrosion products at the end of this period, backwashing should be continued until the
water is clear.
Regenerant levels of 6 to 20 lb of 66° Baumé sulfuric acid per ft3 of resin are
recommended by resin vendors. Reasonably efficient acid use is achieved at 10 to 12
lb/ft3, as shown in Chapter 1, and sufficient ammonia is removed to give acceptable
operating capacity. However, polisher bed sodium leakage varies with sodium
contamination on the resin and bed outlet pH. Cation resin regeneration with 6 to 10%
weight sulfuric acid at a regeneration level of 10 to 12 lb acid per ft3 of resin (160 to 190
g/L) should give adequate removal of the ammonium ions. Europeans practice would
be to use 5% sulfuric acid (120 to 160 g/L). If regeneration is occurring after a significant
condenser tube leak, care should be taken to lower the acid concentration to avoid
calcium sulfate precipitation. Regenerated cation resin can be cleaned free of crude for a
second time if operating experience shows this to be of value. This should be followed
by a high flow rinse to a 20 µS/sm endpoint. Some adjustment of the rinse endpoint is
acceptable, based upon specific plant conditions. Soaking the rinsed cation resin for 8 to
16 hours followed by another rinse removes additional sulfuric acid. The soak should be
performed if there is sufficient time in the regeneration cycle.
After a condenser leak, multiple anion regenerations should be used to maintain

effluent quality. Anion resin regenerations should be with a minimum of 4 to 6% weight
3
sodium hydroxide at 10 to 12 lb/ft resin (160 to 190 g/L) The resin and sodium
hydroxide solution should be maintained at 120°F (49°C) to improve silica elution.
Regenerant contact time with the anion resin should be at least 60 minutes. Regenerated
anion resins can be cleaned free of crud for a second time if operating experience shows
this to be of value. The above regeneration procedures are summarized in Table 4-1.
Purity of regenerants can also have a significant effect on the ion exchange performance
where high levels of performance are required, such as operation beyond amine break.
Regenerant purities should be specified in procurement documents and should be
checked at delivery periodically in order to assure purity is sufficient .
Sodium hydroxide used as regenerant for anion exchange resins normally is purchased
as a 50% weight solution in water. The final anion contaminant level (particularly
chloride) on the regenerated resin will be affected by the anionic impurities in the
sodium hydroxide1. “Rayon grade” sodium hydroxide normally is used for condensate
polisher anion resin regeneration to minimize anionic impurities in the regenerant. A
suggested sodium hydroxide purchase specification is given in Appendix D.
4-27
Table 4-1
Ion Exchange Resin Regeneration
3
Flow rate, gpm/ft
a
Operation (liter/min-liter) Endpoint
Cation
Application of 6 to 10% 0.5 to 0.711 (0.06 to 0.094) 10 to 12 lb/ft3 (160 to 190 g/L)b
sulfuric acid
Acid displacement 0.5 to 0.7 1 bed volume
Fast rinse 2 to 4 (0.27 to 0.53) 10 min
Drain to resin level -- --
Air scrub and backwash -- 20 minutes
Fast rinse 2 to 4 (0.27 to 0.53) 30 µS/cm
Anion
Application of 4 to 6% 0.3 to 0.5 (0.040 to 0.067) 10 to 12 lb/ft3 (160 to 190 g/L)b

sodium hydroxide for 60 minutes minimum, 90
minutes is preferable
Caustic displacement 0.3 to 0.5 1 bed volume
Fast rinse 2 to 4 (0.27 to 0.53) 1 bed volume
Drain to resin level -- --
Air scrub and backwash -- 20 minutes
Fast Rinse 2 to 4 10 µS/cm
a
gpm/ft3 = gallons per cubic foot of resin; liters per minute per liter of resin is shown
in parentheses.
b
lb/ft3 = Pounds of regenerant chemical per cubic foot of resin; grams per liter of
resin is shown in parentheses.
After verifying that all resin has been removed from the cation and anion regeneration
vessels (a visual check should be made by the operator), the storage vessel should be
drained to a water level of 2 to 3 inches (5 to 7.5 cm) above the resin bed and air injected
4-28
through the storage vessel underdrains at 6 to 12 scfm /ft2 (1.8 to 3.6 std m3/m2-min) for
at least 10 minutes to mix the resins. The mixed resin is then rinsed at 3 to 4 gpm/ft3
resin (0.40 to 0.53 L/min per L resin) to a conductivity end-point of less than 0.1 µS/cm.
Resin beds should be recycled following transfer to their service vessels. This
accomplishes two important functions. The resin bed is packed and conditioned to
accept flow at condensate polisher flow rates without shocking the bed hydraulically,
and it allows the effluent quality to be checked in order to assure that poor quality
condensate is not forwarded as a result of some error during regeneration.
In some cases, the use of surfactants has been shown to improve resin cleanliness and
thus resin performance. Weak ammonium hydroxide solutions (0.1%) have also been
found to improve resin cleanliness. Mixed bed systems should include facilities and
procedures to use surfactants o r weak ammonia solutions. Use of surfactants should
include appropriate measures to assure that surfactants are completely rinsed from
resins before the resin charge is returned to service.
Regeneration levels should be increased at least once per every 6 months to convert a
higher percentage of the ion sites. This high-level regeneration should also be
performed after each incident of condenser leakage.
Resin Cleaning
Resin used in condensate a polishing often become fouled by organics, iron oxides, or
occasionally by oil from either the turbine or contaminated drains. In some cases it is
possible to clean the resins so that they are fit for further service, but in other instances
it is prudent to dispose of them and replace the beds with new resins.
Various cleaning techniques are discussed below. Any cleaning procedures used should
be thoroughly discussed with the resin manufacturers and the suppliers of the cleaning
agents before the cleaning is started. All traces of any cleaning agent, whether it is acid,
detergent, or reducing agent, must be completely rinsed from the resins before they are
regenerated prior to service. Alternatively, several companies offer resin cleaning
services.
Resins in service in condensate polishing are required to work under extreme

conditions of flow and impurity concentrations. There is little room for any
deterioration in their performance and the effort and cost of attempting to clean or
rescue fouled resins must be carefully considered and compared with the cost of
replacing the resin charges. Comparisons of performance of the new versus the cleaned
resins should also be considered.
Iron-Fouled Resins. Iron-fouling sometimes affects resins such as those that have been
exposed to heavily contaminated water at startup or have been in service for long
4-29
periods without regeneration in the ammonia form. The removal of iron crud is
routinely undertaken by air-scrubbing before and after regeneration. This is described
in Chapter 1, which also covers the use of ultrasonic resin cleaners which are widely
used on BWRs and some other plants. An Advanced Resin Cleaning System is currently
being developed in a collaborative venture with EPRI and is primarily intended for use
on BWRs7. Despite such treatments, some resins become fouled with iron, leading to a
loss of capacity and a reduction in their exchange kinetics. Soaking in a 10% solution of
hydrochloric acid for 12 hours has been suggested as a method of cleaning them. Before
this is attempted, advice from the suppliers of both the resins and the acid should be
obtained. The use of inhibited acid, to prevent corrosion to the regeneration vessel and
internals will almost certainly be necessary.
Other iron removal techniques include the use of a reducing agent such as sodium
dithionite ((NaS2O4), by itself or with sodium tripolyphosphate. The use of sulphamic or
citric acid has also been suggested. Full details of these procedures together with the
necessary safety precautions should be obtained from the resin and chemical suppliers.
The consequences to the steam cycle, in the event that any of the cleaning agents used
would contaminate the steam cycle must also be considered. Obviously, the cleaning
agent must be completely rinsed and removed from the resins before the newly cleaned
bed is placed back into service. Quality control tests to assure complete removal must
be a part of any cleaning operation.
Oil Removal. Condensate polishing resins sometimes become fouled with oil leaking
from various sources in the power plant. Oil interferes with the kinetic response of the
resins leading to decreases in the operational capacities of beds and a reduction in the
purity of polished water. If inert resins become oil-fouled, this can seriously affect their
ability to form a buffer layer during the separation and regeneration process.
Oil-fouled resins can be cleaned by the use of nonionic, nonfoaming detergent. These
are readily available. Again, the resins must be thoroughly rinsed free of the detergent
before regeneration begins.
Organic Fouling. The fouling of anion resins is a very common problem leading to a
significant deterioration in exchange kinetics. Fouling is often caused by organic
impurities entering the steam cycle as impurities in makeup water. Organic fouling
usually affects the anion resin. In the absence of condenser leaks, the effects can go
unnoticed until the condensate polishing system is needed to mitigate a condenser leak.
The kinetic response of anion resins, and ideally that of cation resins also, should be
8
routinely checked by a procedure such as that detailed in Appendix D. A 1986 study
gives useful guidance regarding acceptable kinetic responses and those at which action
should be taken.
Procedures developed for cleaning ion exchange resins used in other applications have
been adopted by some operators of polishing plants but with varied levels of success. In
4-30
some cases improvements have been reported, but the improvements have been short-
lived. Kinetically impaired condensate polishing resins should be replaced and not
cleaned. Attempts have been made to clean fouled resins with alkaline brine solutions
(10% sodium hydroxide +2% sodium hydroxide). If this cleaning procedure is
successful, the resins must be restored to OH-form from the chloride form anion resin,
which results from the brining process. This itself presents difficulties but these can be
overcome by using a two-stage regeneration process with a divalent anion, sulfate or
carbonate. The divalent anion is initially used to displace the chloride. This step is
followed by a conventional, but high-level, sodium hydroxide regeneration.
Powdered Resin
Powdered resin systems also require careful operation in order to achieve the best
system performance. Careful backwash, proper precoat material mixture, and good
precoat application are necessary to achieve desired performance.
Precoat Materials. Recommended precoat materials and resin ratios vary with the
operating situation. As discussed in Chapter 1, the precoat can be all resin or can have
fiber added. The addition of fiber can improve run lengths (or precoat economics) when
run length is being limited by filtration capability. Fiber has no value when ion
exchange capacity is governing run length.
Cation to anion resin ratios (dry weight basis) recommended by resin vendors vary
between two to one and four to five (chemically equivalent). Two to one (or higher)
ratios are most often recommended in systems with neutralizing amines (fossil and
PWR).
There are numerous combinations of powdered resins with and without fiber additives
that have been recommended for powdered resin systems. The powdered resins are
either supplied as cation and anion resins which are mixed by the operator or as vendor
premixed formulations. There is little advantage for units using AVT to use hydrogen
form cation resin during normal operation because in the 8.8 to 9.6 pH range cation is
converted to the ammonia or amine form within a few hours.
Consequently, fossil and PWR station filter demineralizer normally are operated with
amine form cation resin. Utilization of hydrogen form cation resin may be beneficial
during condenser in-leakage or to reduce cycle pH. Fossil and PWR stations generally
use resin precoat without cellulose fibers, which are mixed by the plant.2. Typical mixed
precoat formulations for fossil, BWR, and PWR stations are given in Table 4-2.
4-31
Table 4-2
Typical Powdered Resin Precoat Materialsa
Resin Form Dry Weight Fractions Precoat

dosage
2
Plant and Precoat Type Cation Anion Cation Anion Fiber lb-dry/ft
Fossil and PWR
Normal operation NH4+ OH- 0.67 0.33 0 0.2 to 0.3
Cooling water leak H+ or OH

-
0.50 0.50 0 0.2 to 0.3
NH4+
BWR
Plant mixed H+ OH- 0.57 0.29 0.14b 0.2 to 0.3
Premixed H+ OH- 0.30 0.37 0.33 0.2 to 0.3
a
Note that these are only typical values. Numerous other combinations are available
as discussed in the text.
b
Resin precoat with cellulose fiber overlay.
Startup and Low-Load Operations. As with mixed bed polishing, powdered resin
polishers are used extensively during startup operations for cycle cleanup. Once
condenser vacuum is established, cycle cleanup prior to startup is frequently performed
by recirculating through portions of the feedwater system to the condenser. If this is not
possible, vessels should be put on-line as soon as load allows sufficient for the service
vessels. Frequent precoats may be necessary during startups to keep up with crud
removal. Because condensate may not be fully deaerated during startup operations and
because anion capacity is relatively small, service runs of vessels during startups will be
relatively short. Exhaustion of the anion fraction of the powdered resin filter
demineralizers results in the production of acids from the filter demineralizers. This
should be avoided.
Condenser Leakage. Because of the limited ion exchange capacity of powdered resin
filter demineralizers, the capabilities to handle significant condenser leakage are poor.
Utilities should be prepared to quickly shut down units when condenser leakage is
detected and repair the condenser.
4-32
Condenser air-leakage is also potentially a significant problem for powdered resin

exchangers. In particular, carbon dioxide will exhaust the anion resin fraction only and
this fraction is generally smaller in powdered resin systems. Surveillance for air in-
leakage and more frequent precoating is necessary for powdered resin systems. Once
the anion fraction of the powdered resin system is exhausted, any neutral salts which
are treated by the exhausted exchanger will produce acids because of the remaining
cation exchange capacity.
Flow-balancing. Flow-balancing for powdered resin polishers is desirable to achieve

control of the flow to each individual vessel, independent of the differential pressure
across the individual vessels. This flow-balancing feature should be used if available
Run Termination. As with mixed bed polishers, run termination criteria need to be
developed for each plant, again, as a part of the overall water quality control program.
Most stations operate beyond ammonia (or other amine) break because of the limited
hydrogen cycle capacity with powdered resin units. Differential pressure is most often
the run termination criterion. Effluent cation conductivity or sodium are reliable criteria
for run termination for ion exchange capacity exhaustion. Effluent sodium is more
expensive to implement for each polisher effluent than action conductivity. Vessel
throughput and in some instances time or schedule may also be used to terminate runs.
Time or schedule are usable for baseloaded plants which are free of condenser in-
leakage (both air and cooling water) and operate at relatively consistent or predictable
loads. Vessel throughput can be used for those plants where flow rates and load vary.
Schedule can be used when normal operations without condenser leakage allow the
utility to space out precoats on a desirable schedule.
Maintenance and Inspection. Maintenance of powdered resin systems should include at

least annual inspections of the vessel septa and vessel interiors. Often, a few septa will
need to be replaced during each inspection. Septa should be tested according to
manufacturer’s instructions. Often manufacturer’s offer cleaning and inspection
services for the septa.
For units where quick outage turnaround would be advantageous and the top
tubesheet design is used, a spare septa bundle can be considered. The spare septa
bundle could quickly replace the bundle removed from the service vessel, and the
service vessel could be placed back into operation rapidly.
Observation of service vessel performance may indicate the need to clean the septa.
Septa cleaning is required generally every 3 to 5 years. Cleaning can improve iron
fouling, oil fouling, or resin penetration. Cleaning solutions consist of weak acids,
3
detergents, EDTA, or caustic, depending upon the foulant . Septa manufacturers offer
recommended cleaning solutions.
4-33
Precoating Operations. Precoating is a most important operation for powdered resin

units. Precoat can be tailored for the plant operations that are expected. For startup
purposes when suspended solids removal is likely to be important, precoats high in
fiber or cation resin can be used. For minor condenser leakage situations, higher precoat
loading and higher anion ratios can be applied. Such precoat tailoring is recommended
when equipment and operator capability allows.
Precoating operations vary with the equipment design and septa type. The objectives
are to provide the most even precoat possible. Backwash and septa cleaning procedures
should be repeated several times in order to assure that septa are clean before
precoating. For nuclear units, where backwash wastes must be extensively treated,
wastes from repeated, unnecessary backwash cycles are not desirable. Under this
condition, plant-specific judgments must be made about repeating backwashing cycles.
Precoat materials should be mixed immediately before use and should not be kept in
the precoat tank for extended periods of time. Only one precoat should be mixed at one
time, even though the manufacturer designed the tanks to hold more than one precoat.
Typically precoats are applied at a rate of 0.2 lb/ft2. Table 4-2 shows the typical different
combinations of precoat materials. While customization of precoats for each particular
operating circumstances is suggested, these precoats will cover the majority of
operations. When cation and anion resins are mixed at the station, V/Vo measurements
should be made with target values of 0.3 to 0.7 A deflocculating agent (Solution A) may
be used to adjust V/Vo values as necessary to achieve desired values.
Effluent samples should be taken following precoating to check for resin leakage for
those stations with septa which are subject to leakage. Samples can be taken before the
vessel is placed into service, but leakage normally peaks during and shortly after the
flow transient that occurs when the vessel s are placed in service.
Resin Guidelines
Cation and anion bead resin often are designed to operate as pairs in mixed bed
demineralizers to optimize operating and regeneration performance. Vendor-
recommended resin pairs should be used when the resins are to be regenerated to better
assure adequate resin separation and minimize resin cross-contamination.
Generally, mixtures recommended for fossil and PWR plants which operate at elevated
pH should be cation rich (approximately four equivalents cation resin per equivalent of
anion resin). However, some PWRs have opted to reduce the cation to anion ratio to
offset long-term kinetic degradation of the anion resin. The excess cation resin increases
the time to amine breakthrough. If the polisher can be operated with amine form resin,
continued operation beyond amine break can be practiced. The increased cation fraction
4-34
then compensates for the lower cation capacity caused by the amine form. Resin ratio
recommendations are contained in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3
Demineralizer Mixed Bed Resin Ratio Guidelinesa
Mixed Bed Cation to Anion

Plant Type System Configuration Volume Ratios
PWR and fossil Mixed bed 2 to 1
PWR FD followed by mixed bed 2 to 1
PWR and fossil Cation followed by mixed bed 1 to 2 or 1 to 4
BWR Mixed bed 2 to 3
BWR FD followed by mixed bed 2 to 3
a
These are suggested and generally used ratios. However, each station should
evaluate their operating conditions and determine an optimum ratio.
Systems with cation beds followed by mixed beds have the advantage that the
upstream cation bed removes the ammonia or amine used for pH control. These
advantages are discussed in Chapter 2 and in previous EPRI Report4. This allows
improved anion removal by the mixed beds because of anion resin rich mixtures can be
used and kinetics are improved. The upstream cation bed is regenerated alone,
minimizing mixed bed regenerations and the higher sodium and/or sulfate leakages
which sometimes follow. The reduced number of mixed bed disturbances may also
result in improved resin life. The cation to anion resin volume ratio for mixed bed
generally should be in the 1:2 to 1:4 range.
There is considerable experience with successful use of both gel and macroporous resins
in condensate polishing systems. Utilization of uniform particle size resin can improve
resin separation. Inert resins are not now widely used. Their tendency to clump and oil
foul and the development of new separation and post treatment techniques has
diminished their attractiveness.
Resin life can be significantly shortened by initial unit startups. Such startups result in
significant exposure of the resins to crud as well as to materials remaining from piping
4-35
and equipment installation and fabrication. It makes economic sense to use older, used
resin from another installation, if possible, or for two units to share “startup” resins.
Resin life should be determined by resin analysis, which should be accomplished at

least on an annual basis. In most instances, resin kinetic response will resin life. Sample
should be accomplished with a core sample or by a composite sample taken during
resin transfer.
Resins should be purchased according to a resin specification or resins should be

purchased from an established vendor. Premium grade condensate polisher resins
should be purchased. Uniform particle resins have shown good performance and
improvement in resin separation. A suggested resin specification is contained in
Appendix D.
Management Guidelines
Condensate polishing is an important tool to assist in maintaining water quality. When

it is designed, installed, and operated properly it provides an economic way to improve
main cycle water chemistry. Management must supply the overall support and
guidance to show that there is a recognition that the quality of water within a plant is
important and must be well controlled. Appropriate control provides long-term
improved unit reliability and availability, improved heat transfer, and minimization of
equipment wastage by corrosion, as well as short-term tangible savings in minimizing
the frequency of chemical cleaning.
Management needs to support the plant chemistry and engineering staffs in the
evaluation of condensate polishing. Obviously, the addition of condensate polishing is a
relatively large capital expenditure. Once polishing is decided upon, management
should continue to support the plant staff to assure that appropriately designed systems
are purchased, properly installed, and properly operated. Only with this support can
the complete benefits of condensate polishing be achieved.
Wastewater Disposal
Wastewater disposal at any power plant should be evaluated on a plantwide basis in

order to coordinate the disposal and reuse of all wastewaters generated within the
plant. This coordination of wastewater disposal on a plantwide basis is important
during the design of a new unit and from both an operational as well as an
administrative standpoint for an operating unit.
Generally, it is possible to dispose of wastes from condensate polishing operations for

fossil units and PWRs via discharge from the station. The wastes are generally in two
distinct sources, based upon wastewater quality. These are spent regenerants and rinse
waters (including resin transfer wastewater). The latter category is generally high
4-36
quality water and is suitable for recycling within the plant. However, the cost of
installing tanks and pumps to recycle these rinse waters does not generally justify the
value received by recycling. Thus, rinse waters are generally discharged in an
acceptable manner.
The spent regenerants are still relatively strong acids and bases. At some large coal fired
stations, ash ponds are used for disposal of spent regenerant wastes. Because of the
volume of ash water handled, the wastes can be routed to the ash ponds without
neutralization. Otherwise, spent regenerants should be neutralized prior to discharge.
Neutralization is often accomplished in a neutralization basin, a basin that collects all of
the wastewater from a regeneration and adds either acid or caustic (generally caustic) to
neutralize the entire batch. With batch neutralization, self-neutralizing can be used to
the extent that the process will allow. Self-neutralizing uses the caustic from the anion
resin regeneration to partially neutralize the acid from the cation regeneration. In-line
neutralization systems can be used, but these are generally not capable of self-
neutralization because the acid and caustic regeneration steps may not coincide.
In general, plant facilities should be used to neutralize the regenerant wastes. These
facilities can be shared with makeup treatment ion exchange systems or other plant
systems which use acid and caustic and have wastes which require neutralization. The
neutralization facilities need to be sized in conjunction with other plant needs. If
neutralization facilities are added as a retrofit with a condensate polishing retrofit, the
facilities should be sized to contain and neutralize the wastewater from at least two
system regenerations.
Wastewater disposal regulations are promulgated under authority of National

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and local in-stream standards. NPDES categories condensate
polisher wastes as “low volume waste sources,” along with several sources in the plant
and as such, limits total suspended solids and oil and grease. Also the pH of all
discharges, low volume waste sources included, must be between 6.0 and 9.0. One of
the requirements of RCRA regulations is that pH must be greater than 2.0 and less that
12.0 in order to avoid being classified as hazardous wastes, which then fall under
RCRA’s stringent requirements for handling and recordkeeping. It is highly desirable to
avoid these requirements. The pH limitations from either of these sets of regulations
generally make neutralizing wastewater from condensate polishing systems desirable.
Local instream standards are specific to the watershed in which the discharge is located
and often limit the quality of the discharge according to the impact it would have on the
stream with respect to specific species such as sulfate, chloride, sodium, etc.
Permitting for each station is accomplished by either state or federal agencies and all of
the regulations for permitting are considered and interpreted by the specific permitting
agency. The interpretations and permitting methods are highly variable. Considering all
of the discharges from a typical plant with condensate polishing, the wastes from the
4-37
polishing operation by themselves may be insignificantly. Typically, neutralization

followed by discharge to the station discharge facilities is all that is practiced. As noted
above, permitting is subject to individual interpretation. In some instances, it has been
necessary to limit the pH in the discharge from the system, upstream of neutralization
facilities, to be between pH 2.0 and 12.0. In these instances, ammonia buffering (in-line
ammonia addition) has been used by one utility.
Road Map for Condensate Polisher Justification
Figure 4-7 contains a graphical representation of the steps necessary to evaluate and
justify the use of retrofit of condensate polishing at an individual station. While the
road map is based upon fossil fuel plants, similar methods would be pursued for
nuclear plants. The following paragraphs will help explain the road map. The following
sections are numbered, to coincide with numbers contained on Figure 4-7. Note that
steps 3 through 6 are both applicable to mixed bed or powdered resin polisher systems
and are shown in both places on Figure 4-7.
1. Steam Cycle Review--The first step in determining whether a condensate polisher

can be justified for a power plant is total a careful look at the steam cycle. Items to be
noted include cycle configure, drum pressures, steam uses, condenser leakage
history, and cooling water source. Obviously, condensate polishing must be
provided if the cycle is once-through. Condensate polishing should be considered if
any of the following additional condition exist: brackish water or seawater being
used for cooling water, contaminants entering the steam from process uses in a
cogeneration plant, drum pressures greater than 1800 psi, or if some other condition
exists such as plans to change a unit to cycling duty.
2. Preliminary Design and Evaluation--Conceptual design of a condensate polisher

system is the next step to be performed. If filtration is the primary concern for
condensate polishing, then the evaluation of both powdered resin and deep bed
systems is appropriate. Filtration capability may be of the greatest concern for plants
intended for cycling operation. Otherwise, the impacts of the cooling system may
indicate the need to consider the mixed bed system. If brackish water or seawater is
used in the condenser then a mixed bed condensate polisher is suggested. Mixed
bed polishers have the ion exchange capabilities to protect against condenser tube
leakage. If cycle chemistry improvement is the driving force behind the
consideration of polishing, then the evaluation of both powdered resin and mixed
bed condensate polishers may be considered. Units requiring an unusually high
level of condensate treatment may also wish to consider more extensive systems
such as prefilters or upstream cation beds, etc. Any utility preferences or policies
regarding the type of polishing used may be included in the decision path.
3. Capital Cost and Fixed Charges--The first step in determining the economic
justification of condensate polishing is to determine the capital costs for the polisher
4-38
project. Alternative systems such as shown in Chapter 3 could be considered Several

cases should be examined, and the case with the more positive economic justification
should be chosen unless there are other considerations which indicate that a
different system should be chosen.
After establishing vessel configuration and other options, total the capital costs of
the project. The fixed charge rate is the fraction of the capital cost that must be paid
over the period of evaluation to pay off the capital expenditure. This rate basically
converts the one-time capital expenditure to an annual cost. Determine the fixed
charge rate percentage on capital for the project, and calculate the fixed charges as
shown below. This annual cost will be added to other annual costs to determine the
total annual cost.
4-39
Figure 4-7 Roadmap for Condensate Polisher Justification
(For the following presentations, calculation methods and/or example values are
shown in parentheses. These values were taken from the Chapter 3 example for the
mixed bed condensate polisher operating in the hydrogen cycle provided for a new
plant.)
Total Capital Cost * Fixed Charge Rate,% = (eq. 7)

($2,932,000 * 15% = $440,000
4-40
4. Operating Costs--Values--for the following list of variables are needed to calculate

the comparative annual costs of operation.
A--Regen demin water per gpm condensate flow for PR, gallons. (PR only, 2.17).
B--Cation resin volume/vessel, ft3 (96).
C--Anion resin volume/vessel, ft3 (48).
D--Demin water used in regeneration, gal/ft3 (275).
E--Demin water cost, $/1000 gal. (2.00).
F--Regenerations or precoats per year (No. of vessels on-line* typical run length,
219).
G--Total condensate flow, gpm (6000).
H--Amount of ammonia to be made up to the cycle, ppm (1.5).
I--Ammonia cost, $/lb (1.00).
J--Amount of acid used per regeneration, lb/regen (cubic feet cation resin*
regeneration level, 550).
K--Cost of acid, $/lb (0.05).
L--Amount of 50% caustic used per regen, lb/regen (cubic feet anion resin*
regeneration level, 324).
M--Cost of 50% caustic, $/lb (0.20).
N--(Not used).
3
O--Cation resin cost, $/ft (130).
P--Anion resin cost, $/ft3 (240).
Q--Number of polisher vessels (3).
R--Years per resin replacement (3).
4-41
S--Precoat used per precoat, dry lb/precoat (PR only, septa area * precoat loading,
107).
T--Precoat cost, $/lb (PR only, 5.00).
U--Aux. electrical usage rate, $/kWh (0.025).
V--Electrical demand rate, $/kW (531).
W--Fixed charged rate on capital costs, % (15).
X--Annual maintenance cost, $ (10,000).
Y--Annual labor cost, $ (8000).
AJ--Percent capacity of each vessel, % (50).
AK--Average pressure drop across condensate polisher, psi (40).
AL--Number of condensate pumps operating (2).
AM--Size of dilution water heater, kW (200).
AN--Number of water heaters running for each regen (1)
AS--Condensate pump hours of operation per regen, h (168).
AT--Dilution water heater hours of operation per regen, h (1).
FL--Fixed levelizing factor life cycle of plant (1.85)
VL--Variable levelizing factor based on load model for plant (1.24).
Use the preceding list of variables to calculate the comparative annual cost of
operation. Appropriate sections of Chapter 3 can be use to compare results with the
values used in this study.
Regeneration demin water cost

(B + C) * D * E * F 1,000,000 =
__________ (eq. 8)
or for Powdered Resin
A * E * F * G 1,000,000 =
4-42
Cycle chemical cost

__________ (eq. 9)
G * H * I * 0.00877 =
Regen chemicals cost

__________ (eq. 10)
(J * K + L * M) * F 1000 =
Resin replacement cost

__________ (eq. 11)
(B * O + C * P) * Q / R 1000 =
Precoat material cost

__________ (eq. 12)
S * T * F 1000 =
Electricity
(0.7457 * (G * AJ * AK * 0.000583 * AL * AS) + AM * AN * AT) * U * F 1000 =
0.7457 * (G * AJ * AK * 0.000583 * AL * AS) * U * F 1000 =
__________ (eq. 13)
Variable Cost of Operation

__________ (eq. 14)
((1) + (2) + (3) + (4) + (5) + (6)) * VL =
Electrical Demand
(0.7457 * (G * AJ * 0.000583 * AL) + AM * AN) * V * W 1000 =
__________ (eq. 15)
0.7457 * (G * AJ * 0.000583 * AL) * V * W 1000 =
Maintenance
__________ (eq. 16)
X 1000 =
Labor
__________ (eq. 17)
Y 1000 =
4-43
Fixed Cost of Operation

__________ (eq. 18)
(9) + ((10) + (11)) * FL =
Comparative Annual Cost of Operation

__________ (eq. 19)
(8) + (12) =
5. Benefits--Use the following list of variables to determine the benefits of condensate

polisher operation. The benefit of condensate polishing section can be used to
compare results with values used in the study.
G--Total condensate flow, gpm (6000).
BA--Average turbine loss deposition loss prevented, %/yr (0.2).
BB--Differential replacement power cost, $/kWh (0.01).
BC--Increased availability, days/yr (5).
BD--Generating capacity, MW (440).
BE--Time saved at cold 50% hold point, h (24).
BF--Number of cold starts per year, starts/yr (1).
BG-Not used.
BH--Time saved at a warm 50% hold point, h (6).
BI--Number of warm startups per year, start/yr (4).
BJ--Chemical cleaning costs, $/cleaning (120,000).
BK--Years between cleaning without CP, yr (4).
BL--Years between cleaning with CP, yr (6).
BM--Boiler blowdown without CP, % (1.0).
BN--Boiler blowdown with CP, % (0.25).
BO--Boiler blowdown cost, $/1000 gal. (2.50).
4-44
FL--Fixed levelizing factor life cycle of plant (1.85).
VL--Variable levelizing factor based on load model for plant (1.24).
Reduced chemical cleaning

__________ (eq. 20)
BJ * (1 BK − 1 BL ) 1000 =
Faster warm starts

__________ (eq. 21)
BH * BI * BB * BD 2 =
Faster cold starts

__________ (eq. 22)
BE * BF * BB * BD 2 =
Improved availability
__________ (eq. 23)
BC * BB * BD * 24 =
Turbine loss prevented

__________ (eq. 24)
BA * BB * 8760 =
Comparative Fixed Annual Benefits

__________ (eq. 25)
((14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + (18)) * FL =
Reduced blowdown
__________ (eq. 26)
G * (BM - BN) * BO 0.5256 =
Comparative Variable Annual Benefits

__________ (eq. 27)
VL * (20) =
Comparative Annual Benefits of Operation

__________ (eq. 28)
(19) + (21) =
6. Justification--The economic justification used in this study is simple benefits minus

costs. Justification is equal to the annual levelized benefits less the levelized annual
operating costs less the annual fixed charges on capital.
4-45
(22) - (1) - (13) = __________ (eq. 29)
A positive justification means the condensate polisher is economically justified.

After the above calculations on the viable alternatives are performed, the alternative
with the greatest justification should be chosen. If the justifications for all
alternatives are negative, in some cases it must be determined whether a polisher
should be provided regardless of the economic justification.
References
1. F. X. McGarvey, et al. “Effect of Caustic Quality on the Performance of Strong Base

Anion Exchangers.” Proc. International Water Conference, 42 pp. 297-304, 1981.
2. C. G. Diehl “Analysis of Utility Industry Powdered Resin Survey - January 18, 1990,”
EPRI Condensate Polisher Workshop, Dallas, TX, January 1990.
3. Paul Cohen. “The ASME Handbook on Water Technology for Thermal Power
Systems,” New York: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1992, pp 1204.
4. M. A. Sadler, et al. “Condensate Polishers for Brackish Water Cooled PWRs,” NP-
4550. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, July 1986.
5. E. Salem, “A Study of the Chemical and Physical Characteristics of Ion Exchange

Media Used in Trace Contaminant Removal, Phase 1, Ammonium Form Cation
Exchange Resin Mixed Beds,” American Power Conference, Chicago, April 1969.
6. M. Ball, M. A. Jenkins, and R. J. Burrows. “Ammonium Form Cation Resin

Operation of Condensate Purification Plant” edited by D. Naden and M. Streat,
Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood, 1984.
7. J. E. Earls and R. H. Asay. Advanced Resin Cleaning System at Grand Gulf Station.
EPRI Condensate Polishing Workshop, Seattle, Washington, March 1995.
8. J. T. McNulty, M. Eumann, C. A. Bevan, and V. C. T. Tan. “Anion Exchange Resin

Kinetic Testing An Indispensable Diagnostic Tool for Condensate Polisher
Troubleshooting.” IWC-86-54 International Water Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 1986.
9. R. R. Harries and M. A. Ball. “Equilibrium Kinetics in Water Purification,” Proc.

Ionex ‘87, N E Wales Institute, Wrexham, UK, 13-16 April 1987.
10. M. A. Ball and R. T. Burrows. “Ammonium Form Cation Resin Operation of

Condensate Purification Plant, p 106, Ion Exchange Technology, Edited by D. Naden
and M. S. Treat, UK: Ellis Horwood, 1984.
4-46
A
CONDENSATE POLISHING EXPERIENCE
Operating experience on condensate polishing was sought from three

sources. Plants were visited to obtain first-hand experience with
condensate polishing. Meetings were conducted with condensate
polishing equipment suppliers to obtain this input. Surveys were also
mailed to condensate polisher users who were members of the EEI
Chemistry Committee or members of the EPRI Fossil Plant Chemistry
Group and the International Cycle Chemistry Group. What follows is a
compilation of information and opinions obtained from these sources.
These comments and opinions may have a specific context which is
pertinent to understanding the opinion, but could not be included in the
Appendix due to space considerations. These comments and opinions are
included strictly for information purposes, even though the comments
may not have comprehensive or universal value.
Condensate Polishing Advantages/Justifications
Many advantages were cited for the use of condensate polishing by the
respondents. These advantages, while not easily quantifiable, justify the
use of condensate polishing in many cases.
Most polishers were installed as original equipment, a majority were once-

through units for fossil plants. These were supplied in order to comply
with steam generator or turbine manufacturer steam quality
requirements. Many utilities that tried polishing have determined that it is
necessary to ensure long-term availability of generating units.
Respondents indicated that once-through units, high-pressure drum units,

units using all-volatile treatment (AVT), and nuclear units should all have
some sort of polishing. Units with poor condensers or units which have
had bad experiences with chemistry upsets would be candidates for
retrofits. Polishing is more easily justified for units which start up and
cycle frequently.
Advantages cited follow:
Better qualify feedwater.
A-1
Condensate Polishing Experience
Fewer forced outages.
Less frequent chemical cleaning.
Improved startup operations.
Better ability to comply with water quality control limitations.
Improved plant economics, faster restarts.
Ability to operate with minor condenser leak.
Improved crud removal.
Reduced blowdown.
Ability to avoid reduced load operation.
Polishers allow use of AVT, which reduces high-pressure turbine

deposits associated with phosphate chemistry.
Long-term unit availability.
Beneficial for two-shifted operation.
Improves turbine capabilities and efficiencies.
Protects the cycle from inadvertent damage.
Compensates for makeup system errors.
A very few respondents provided some negative feedback about

polishers. One noted that it was possible to damage a unit with
improperly operated polishers.
Mixed Bed Versus Powdered Resin
Respondents were users of both powdered resin polishers and mixed bed
type polishers. Generally, they acknowledged that mixed bed units were
better for ion exchange capacity and that powdered resin polishers were
better for filtration capability. Thus, mixed bed polishing provided better
condenser leak protection and would definitely be chosen when high
solids cooling water was used. Respondents indicated that mixed bed
units had an advantage of operating with condenser leaks.
A-2
Mixed Bed Advantages
Ability to remove solids to very low levels.
Offers better protection for condenser leakage than powdered resin.
Offers lower operating cost than powdered resin systems.
Allows for AVT operation without excessive blowdown.
Powdered Resin Advantages
Quick recoating.
Less water usage.
Better filtration capability.
No hazardous chemical handling.
Less equipment and less costly equipment.
Good iron removal capability.
Easier to operate, requires less operator time than mixed bed.
Good filtration for startup.
Good for possible use at high temperatures.
Would be a good prefilter for mixed bed systems.
One utility indicated that they have both powdered resin and mixed bed
condensate polishing within their system. Utility personnel observed that
the units with powdered resin condensate polishing have experienced
turbine problems which are not experienced at the stations with deep bed
polishing. This is attributed to the inability of the powdered resin systems
to operate in the hydrogen cycle. Problems have been experienced on all
of this utility’s once-through units. More problems have been experienced
with the units using powdered resin condensate polishing. The problems
have been attributed to operation in the ammonia cycle. One of their
stations had formerly experienced significant condenser leakage. Several
of the stations have previously allowed continued operation with
condenser leakage. Utility personnel indicated that this past operation
A-3
may have been responsible for some of the turbine problems The units
with deep bed polishing have also experienced frequent condenser
leakage but without any significant turbine damage.
Equipment Sizing Criteria
Full-flow condensate polishing, used continuously, was almost

universally recommended by the respondents. A limited number of users
indicated that they had partial capacity polishing and that it was adequate
for startup operation and for improving cycle water quality. These same
respondents indicated that partial capacity polishing did not provide
adequate protection for condenser leakage situations. A few respondents
indicated that partial capacity polishers would be acceptable for drum
type fossil units. Also, a few others indicated that while full-flow
capability is provided, all of the condensate did not always need to be
polished. One respondent noted, appropriately, that partial-flow polishing
is better than no polishing at all.
One of the visited stations used partial capacity, sidestream polishing with
both the system influent and effluent connected to the condenser. Boiler
tube deposit analysis shows mostly magnetite with some copper, and
hardness scales. The presence of hardness in the boiler tube deposit
samples demonstrates the somewhat imperfect polishing which occurs
with partial capacity, partial use, sidestream units. One of the units visited
has a sidestream, 50% capacity, powdered resin condensate polishing
system. The system operates as a sidestream from the condenser with
system effluent being routed back to the condenser. Because of this
design, the service vessels operate under a vacuum. Because of the many
flanges and valves in this system, significant air in-leakage is experienced.
Thus, this system is often not operated because the air in-leakage is felt to
be more detrimental to the plant than the benefit achieved from polishing.
The polishing system was used in the past during startup, operated for
about 30 days following startup, and then shut down.
Some noted that shared regeneration facilities are acceptable if

regeneration is not too frequent. The shared system causes difficulties
during condenser leakage because of continuous need for regeneration.
Shared spares are acceptable as long as chemistry factors are compatible
for the two units.
One of the visited utilities added a cation resin bottom transfer system
because of the flexibility to deal with imperfect resin charge volumes. Due
to the plant operational situation it was not practical to be able to adjust
the resin ratio or the height of the resin interface at the time of the
A-4
regeneration. Thus, the bottom transfer separation system was added

because it was felt that this system would allow successful operation of
polishers operated beyond ammonia break without the need to adjust the
interface height. With the addition of the bottom transfer separation
vessel, the system uses four regeneration tanks, which include a bottom
transfer separation vessel, a cation regeneration tank, an onion
regeneration tank, and a resin storage tank. Justification for the addition
of the bottom transfer separation system was based upon the elimination
of wastewater that would have been generated (and consequential
wastewater treatment plant capacity required) by hydrogen cycle
operation.
US users indicated that direct path condensate polishing was appropriate.

Foreign users often suggested booster-loop configurations were better.
For direct path users, bypass valves were almost universally
recommended. Opening of the bypass valves would be based upon
differential pressure across the polishers.
Spare service vessels were also often recommended. Shared spares were
considered acceptable by many of the respondents. The use of shared
spares and shared regeneration systems requires that the two units have
the same chemistry.
Equipment Sizing Criteria
Recommendations for equipment sizing criteria were solicited. The

recommendations which were consistent among the respondents are
provided below.
Mixed Bed Service Vessels
Almost universally, vessel diameters were recommended to be based on a

50 gpm/ft2 flow rate. Bed depths of 3 feet were also generally
recommended. Recycle pump sizing for half vessel service flow with
sufficient capacity to overcome losses was recommended.
Regeneration Vessels, Typical, Three Tank System
The cation regeneration tank should allow at least 125% freeboard to

allow for air scrubbing and backwashing. The anion regeneration tank
should allow for 100% freeboard to allow backwashing the anion resin
separately following regeneration. The cation regeneration tank diameter
should be selected to have a good regeneration depth for the cation resin
A-5
of at least 36 inches and preferably 48 inches. A smaller diameter cation

regeneration vessel also provides some advantages by reducing the
amount of mixed resin at the interface. Like the cation regeneration tank, a
good bed depth of anion resin is desirable for regeneration, again at least
36 inches preferably 48 inches.
The resin storage tank should have sufficient freeboard to allow 50%
expansion for mixing the resins.
The interface vessel should have sufficient volume for the amount of
interface to be withdrawn.
Powdered Resin Service Vessels. Sizing of powdered resin service vessels

should be based on flow rate also, with the vessel size sufficient to provide
a filter element flux rate of no more than 3 gpm/ft2.
Precoating Equipment. Precoat tank based upon 4% slurry. Holding

pumps are sized at 25 to 50% of flow, precoat pumps are 50% of full flow.
Closed loop addition of resin was recommended by several respondents.
Equipment Design Features
Respondents had comments on various equipment design features. These

are discussed below.
Bypass Valves
Baypass valves were recommended by virtually all respondents. Almost

all were opened based upon differential pressure across the polisher
system. When reasons were cited, the majority indicated that bypasses
were necessary to provide for operating flexibility. A few noted that
bypasses are desirable because, without contamination, full condensate
polishing is not necessary. Many recognized the potential problems with
leaks, possibility of overuse of bypass, and poorer water quality which
generally results from bypass use. The bypass valve can also be valuable
to allow layup solutions to be transmitted to the steam generator.
Spare Vessels
Spare vessels were generally noted as desirable.
A-6
Sight Glasses
Virtually all respondents recommended a large number of sight glasses,

although a few noted the potential problems with high-pressure (>500 psi)
condensate systems. Sight glasses should be located away from valves,
piping, pumps, etc. Consensus on locations were as follows:
Mixed Bed Systems
Service Vessels: One above bed and one at bottom

of bed
Cation Regeneration Tank: One at bottom of vessel

One at resin interface
One at top of bed
One above top of bed to observed
expansion
Anion Regeneration Tank: One at bottom of vessel

One at top of bed
One above top of bed to observe
expansion
Resin Storage Tank: One at bottom of vessel

One at top of bed
Powdered Resin Service Vessels: Top, middle and bottom of

elements
Effluent Strainers
Individual vessel effluent strainers were generally recommended. It was

recognized that these strainers were to catch gross amounts of resin, not
every individual piece.
Control Systems
Operator-initiated automatic controls were universally recommended.

Virtually all recommended pause or stop steps to confirm satisfactory
completion of resin transfer steps. Also, virtually all recommended
operator monitoring of backwash separation and regenerant application
steps. Manual controls for partial or repeat regeneration were noted as
important.
A-7
Several respondents indicated that control systems had been or would be

replaced. Several units have replaced original control systems with new
PC-based control systems. In one case, existing control switches were
maintained for manual operations and reliability. One retrofit was
justified based upon the high levels of maintenance time and the lack of
availability of parts for some of the control components.
Powdered Resin System Septa
Stainless steel mesh filter septa were frequently replaced. One station had
used porous metal septa and wound fiber septa. (Several of the
respondents have changed out original stainless steel septa.) The station
retained original programming and timing; however, the air scour step is
omitted for the system with sintered metal septa..
Several system retrofits have been performed. Individual vessel isolation

valves have been added to the system. Also, the backwash system has
been improved with the addition of a blower system.
Preventive maintenance of the filter demineralizers includes rigorous

testing of the valves. Often, septa are removed and sent to the
manufacturer for testing.
One respondent has tested the distribution tube and modified precoating
procedures. These provided a run length improvement by a factor of four.
Station personnel indicated that the precoating changes involved the
addition of a tank and metering pump to meter the precoat into the
precoating loop. The precoating system had previously been a single tank
system.
Miscellaneous Observations
One of the visited utilities had retrofitted a valve to the bottom of the
cation regeneration tank. This valve is used to drain cation resin from the
bottom after hydraulic classification in order to adjust the height of the
interface. The utility reported that they desire to have the interface located
within a 1/2 inch band in the CRT prior to resin transfer. This band was
marked on each CRT with either tape or marker. Barrels of cation resin are
retained in the area and occasionally reused when additional cation resin
is needed.
A-8
One respondent indicated that they have frequent problems with resin
bed level and would like to have a method of easily removing or adding
resins.
One visited utility commented that resin beads pile up on splash blocks
preventing complete transfers. Special spray nozzles help with this
problem. The utility commented that splash block distributors were felt to
be poor for distribution.
One station had special design features on the separation vessel which
included white rubber on tank interior, permanent light fixtures
positioned above sight glasses at the top of the vessel, a manhole in the
bottom head of the vessel, and sight glasses flush with the interior walls of
the vessels.
One utility noted that on the basis of the low resin cross-contamination
achievable with the special separation vessel design and operating
procedures, the main source of polisher leakage is a result of resin
remaining in the service vessel after resin transfer. Therefore, the utility
would like to see tangential resin sluice connections in service vessels to
improve resin removal.
Operation of Condensate Polishing Service Vessels
Mixed Bed Units
All respondents used polishing extensively during startup operations.

Polishers are used for preoperational cleanup. Vessels are added as
condensate flow increases; most added vessels as soon as flow allows.
A few respondents noted that booster-loop polishing simplifies startup

and low load operation by always polishing 105% of full-load flow.
Condenser cooling water leakage was detected by cation conductivity,

sodium, chloride, silica, or sulfate measurements. Many noted that leaks
would be plugged with sawdust to be repaired later. Those with
condenser sections with isolation capability would isolate and repair at
reduced load.
Both hydrogen and ammonia cycle operation were practiced. For

hydrogen cycle operation, specific conductivity, cation conductivity, and
silica breakthrough were used. Ammonia cycle operation would be
terminated by cation conductivity, sodium, silica, chloride, sulfate, or
volume throughout. Ammonia cycle operation was recognized to require
A-9
optimum regeneration and low sodium regeneration features. Several

stations noted using hydrogen cycle beds exclusively during startup. Most
respondents noted that they switched to hydrogen cycle operations
during condenser leakage.
Several respondents noted a preference for hydrogen cycle operation due

to the simplicity of operation and superior effluent quality. The definite
breakpoint was also cited as an advantage. Deep bed hydrogen cycle
operation provides acceptable sodium levels under a wider variety of
operating conditions than the ammonia cycle.
The length of production runs for ammonia cycle operations can vary
greatly. Short runs were caused by poor regenerations, operator error,
startups, condenser leakage, and equipment failure. Long runs occur
when plants are operated well, resins are properly regenerated, and when
power generation is baseloaded. Ammonia cycle operation was
considered economic if a good source of low chloride caustic was
available.
Several respondents noted that they would operate with small condenser
leaks until the leaks could be repaired. One respondent noted that there is
a policy on condenser leakage operation in the company chemistry
manual. The respondent has experienced large condenser leaks, and these
have resulted in unit shutdowns.
Many respondents reported maintaining the spare bed in hydrogen form

to combat condenser leakage or for cycle pH reduction.
Operator training and performance was mentioned frequently. The more

informed the operators are the better the operation. Site-specific training
by in-house personnel was sometimes practiced. Training materials, when
used, were generally developed in-house. Most respondents indicated
that operators were given on-the-job training rather than more formalized
training. One respondent noted that the majority of the problems with
polishing were related to operations.
One respondent suggested that operational capacity of anion resins,

determination of organic chloride and sulfate compounds in the steam
and water circuits, and cation resin kinetics are not normally performed
but should be.
A-10
Powdered Resin
Production runs were often terminated by differential pressure for units

using powdered resin filter demineralizers. Length of runs varied greatly
among the respondents. Production runs range from 3 to 30 days.
Abnormally short runs of several hours were due to poor precoats or
startup conditions. A few respondents indicated that effluent quality was
used for termination. One station reported an effluent limit based upon
copper concentration.
Some stations reported varying of precoats based upon startup conditions

or to modify boiler water quality parameters.
Operating steps for putting a vessel on-line and taking if off-line included
opening the bypass in order to assure that transition steps are smooth and
nondisturbing to the precoat. One of the visited stations had experienced
water quality related incidents at the station as a result of resin leakage
and the resultant-pH excursion. To avoid this problem following
precoating, a millipore sample is taken off of the effluent to detect resin
fines and suspended solids. Polishers are recirculated before being put
into service and a 1 liter sample is grabbed. The sample is filtered to detect
resin fines.
Element life varied significantly among respondents also. Generally, 5

year life was expected but some reported life as short as 1 to 2 years.
Element fouling occurred due to iron fouling or resin penetration. Element
cleaning was routinely reported on a frequency of every 2 to 4 years.
Citric or oxalic acid can be used for cleaning. Elements become fouled
with iron, oil, or both. Annual or semi-annual inspection of elements was
recommended. Some respondents noted that septa would be sent to the
vendor for cleaning, when fouled.
Almost all of the respondents did not use cation conductivity reboilers for
any samples. Some reported a unit for portable testing. Several reported
problems with the analysis method.
Varied maintenance practices were reported. Most described some sort of

annual inspection. One utility had a spare septa bundle available for the
filter demineralizer.
One respondent generally uses ammonia form cation resin; however, they
are considering using hydrogen form resin in the future for better sodium
reduction. Additionally, testing has shown that hydrogen form resin
produced precoats, which showed superior performance.
A-11
Operation of Regeneration Facilities
This section describes responses regarding operation of regeneration

facilities. There were several different types of systems described;
however, the majority of respondents used the typical cation regeneration
tank (CRT), anion regeneration tank (ART),and resin storage tank (RST).
Regeneration control systems are operator-initiated automatic systems.

Several noted the advantages of programmable logic controller (PLC)
systems with the flexibility to add steps or modify regeneration programs.
Operators need to be present during portions of the regeneration to
witness key operations. In general, operators were present to confirm
resin separation and resin transfers as well as regeneration application.
Sight glasses were used extensively for checking resin separation (except)
for those systems using the bottom transfer separation system)..Sight
glasses are also necessary to confirm resin transfers. One station noted the
use of ultrasonic methods for determining resin level. Another respondent
noted that turbidity analyzers were used to monitor resin transfers. Resin
separation and interface level adjustment were noted by many as the most
critical operation. One respondent noted the criticality of adjusting for
backwash water temperature for separation. One of the visited facilities
was equipped with ladders and rulers on the site ports to allow relatively
easy access to determine bed level parameters.
One respondent noted sodium monitoring of effluent from sodium

reduction facilities.
Some respondents described the use of shared regeneration systems with

multiple condensate polishing systems. No problems were noted except
for the potential problems of overuse when multiple units were operated
in the hydrogen cycle.
Regeneration systems often use positive displacement pumps for metering

of regenerants. Most confirm regeneration application with concentration
monitoring; some systems used day tanks to assure sufficient regenerant
volume. Operator intervention to prolong regeneration was also noted as
desirable practices.
Virtually all respondents noted that there were several steps of rinsing
following regeneration. The rinses were confirmed by conductivity
monitoring.
Most respondents did not use inert resin, many described negative
experiences with the use of inert resins. Only one respondent noted
A-12
satisfactory experience and continues to use inert resin. That respondent

used extensive cleaning operations to assure clean inert resin.
Many respondents showed special concern for complete transfer from

service vessels to the regeneration systems. Most used splash, high-
velocity flushes, air, special transfer procedures, or special spray nozzles
to aid in complete transfer.
Virtually all respondents described air scrub and backwash steps for
cleaning resins prior to regenerations. Several scrubbed until a clear
effluent was observed. Several of the respondents as well as several of the
visited stations reported successful usage of surfactant addition during
cleaning.
Most of the respondents did not routinely sample regenerants. A few

noted sampling for iron and weight percentage of sulfuric acid for acid
deliveries. Caustic was analyzed for iron, sodium chloride, sodium
sulfate, and weight percentage of caustic.
One utility reported an extensive program of regenerant testing. Every

truckload of regenerant is tested. The utility noted that they have very
stringent contractor requirements, including requirements about the use
of the truck previous deliveries.
One respondent noted that polisher performance can be significantly

improved by specifying low chloride caustic and testing both the acid and
caustic deliveries. The utility tests all caustic deliveries for chloride
content and spot-checks acid and caustic deliveries for purity. Checking of
actual deliveries prior to transfer from the delivery truck is important.
Many respondents recycled regenerated beds prior to on-line operation.
Some respondents used uniform particle size resins and/or one of the
proprietary techniques that have already been described for sodium
reduction. Most respondents noted the desirability of such a system for
operation beyond ammonia break.
Several respondents had modified procedures to isolate the resin interface

during regeneration, even though equipment was not originally designed
for the feature. At one station, the resin interface is transferred to the resin
storage tank prior to regeneration. This transfer is done during
backwashing of the cation bed following anion resin transfer.
A-13
One of the visited utilities makes a practice of trying to leave some anion
resin behind in the cation regeneration tank because perfect separation of
mixed resin is not considered possible. Thus, they try to adjust the
interface line at the bottom of takeoff nozzle.
A modification of this procedure was also reported for CRT resin

separation. The cation/anion interface is brought down to just below the
resin sluice connection invert to intentionally leave some anion resin in
the CRT. The bulk of the anion resin is then transferred to the ART using
the normal sluice/backwash water flow rate. A lower sluice/backwash
flow rate is then used to transfer the remaining anion resin. The flexibility
to transfer resin to and from any vessel allows the operator to repeat the
separation process if cross-contamination is observed in any of the
regeneration vessels.
One of the visited stations has a separate separation vessel in addition to

the typical CRT, ART, RST. The original regeneration vessels had to be
replaced at this station. These vessels were replaced because the CRT
failed and because of unreliable operation of both vessels. The new
separation vessel was installed with the new CRT and ART. The dedicated
separation vessel has a very small diameter and is very tall. This small
diameter vessel results in less area at the cation/anion resin interface than
the typical CRT vessel.
Sodium Reduction Facilities. Several stations reported the lack of special

design features for sodium reduction. One user noted that the proprietary
postseparation anion resin floatation system employing strong sodium
hydroxide was less desirable than the one relying on washing the
separated and regenerated anion resin with a calcium hydroxide solution.
The reason given was higher resin costs owning to resin attrition due to
osmotic shock.
Bead Resins
Respondents reported resin life ranging from 6 months to 10 years, when

the utility was trying to save money. Reasons for replacement given were
for physical stability, fines, cross-linkage, regeneration efficiency, in-
service leakage, fouling, oil fouling, loss of exchange capacity. Several
respondents reported 3 year replacement frequency based upon anion
kinetic capacity. One respondent noted limited use of condensate
polishing system; thus, so far a 10 year life, future replacement is not
presently anticipated. Shorter resin life was reported for resin which was
used for several plant startups. One respondent reported reported that
A-14
resin life varied by the extent of care taken during backwash, transfer, and
regeneration.
Most respondents used core samples and had resins analyzed by outside
sources, typically the resin manufacturer. Analyses performed were
capacity, physical condition, strong-to-weak sites ratio, regeneration
efficiency, swelling, separation, percent fines, percent water retention, iron
fouling, organic fouling, site composition, anion kinetics, density,
percentage of whole beads, size, percentage of undersized particles,
percentage of oversized particles, effective size, uniformity coefficient,
crush strength, friability, both salt splitting and total capacity. The typical
respondent took core samples for analysis by the resin manufacturer once
per year.
A few of the respondents had resin purchase specifications, many relied

upon the resin manufacturer to supply condensate quality resins. Most
purchased resins in hydrogen and hydroxide forms. One station noted
purchase of hydrogen and hydroxide forms for immediate use and
sodium or chloride forms for storage. One respondent reported that new
resin is tested for strong/weak capacity, water retention, extractables,
bead integrity, and size distribution. One visited utility had developed
resin specifications that include requirements for kinetics and ash content.
Several respondents highly recommended strong quality control
measures, including strict specifications and thorough analysis.
Problems were reported with macroreticular (MR) resins with regard to

iron removal. Good service with gel resins was generally reported. Good
service was reported with uniform particle resins with the exception of
clumping problems.
One utility preferred MR resins because they have advantages with use in
the ultrasonic resin cleaner (URC). The utility noted that URC operation
was tough on gel resins. The utility has a URC at one station and wanted
to use the same resin on a systemwide basis. The utility also noted that the
MR resins have better osmotic shock resistance properties according to
tests that they have performed.
Uniform particle size resins were reported by several utilities to improve

separation and transfer. Negative experiences with inert resins were noted
by several respondents. One of the visited stations reported satisfactory
experience. The utility suggested that this was due to frequent resin
cleaning with surfactant and feels strongly about the desirability of
maintaining clean resin.
A-15
Several utilities would not add small amounts of resins to beds because of
the organic extractables which are generally present in new resin.
Surfactant was used following a turbine accident when the resin was
exposed to burning turbine oil.
One station reported the use of in-place regenerated mixed bed units.
While no problems were reported, the potential danger of this design was
acknowledged.
Regeneration levels for various respondents are listed in Table A-1.
One station reported that regeneration levels were varied depending

upon the ion exchange load history of the polishing system. Low levels
are used unless resin has been exposed to condenser leakage. High levels
are used once every 6 months if condenser leakage does not occur during
that time period. When condenser leakage does occur, high levels are
used.
One visited utility suggested the need for an occasional (one/year)

thorough cleaning of the condensate polishing resin to remove fines and
heavy anion beads. They noted that other utilities were using a resin
cleaning service periodically.
Table A-1
Respondents Regeneration Levels
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5
Acid, lb/ft3 8 10 15 10 9.4
Caustic, lb/ft3 8 10 15 8 6.7
Ammonia, lb/ft3
Lime, lb/ft3 0.5
NH4SO4, lb/ft3
pH <8.0
No. 7 No. 8 No. 13 No. 17 No. 20
Acid, lb/ft3 10 6 8 10-15 10-16.2
A-16
Table A-1
Respondents Regeneration Levels
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5
Caustic, lb/ft3 10-20 6 8 10-15 10-16.2
Ammonia, lb/ft3 Used Used
Lime, lb/ft3
NH4SO4, lb/ft3
A B C D
Acid, lb/ft3 19 38 14 6
Caustic, lb/ft3 27 25 6 6
Ammonia,.lb/ft3 Used
Lime, lb/ft3 Used
NH4SO4, lb/ft3
Powdered Resins. Respondents in this category were limited.
Several mentioned that multiple backwash and cleaning cycles were used
prior to precoating. Most respondents used 0.2 lb/ft2 precoat loadings.
Several used overlays or body feed to adjust cycle chemistry. Others
adjusted precoat resin ratio or used ammonia or hydrogen form cation
resin to adjust cycle pH. Several measure V/Vo as a method of adjusting
precoat quality. Deflocculating agent (Solution A) or additional cation
resin is used if adjustment is necessary.
Precoating frequency was typically once per week, although frequencies

of up to once per month were reported.
One respondent noted that condenser leak events occur too fast to
perform any adjustments on resin ratio.
One respondent noted that anion resin may be added if silica becomes a
problem. Fiber may be added when crud problems are encountered,
A-17
although it is not used very often. Overlays may be applied to help tighten
the filtration capability of the precoat.
One station, at unit startup, limits the run of a few of the filter
demineralizers to half of the normal run in order to stage subsequent
precoating operations.
Some respondents perform extensive testing of resin both on receipt and

before use. The testing performed is given in Table A-2.
One respondent suggested that powdered resin purchase specifications

should require as low as achievable cation and anion impurities. One
respondent recommends ASTM D-4266 Method A - Anion Resin
Hydroxide Form Operating Capacity, and Method B - Cation Resin
Hydrogen Form Operating Capacity. Other stations use whichever
product is less expensive, without testing.
One of the visited stations used imported powdered resins. Use of these
resins in this country is limited. Station personnel were extremely
supportive of the use of these resins. They indicated that these materials
were rinsed more thoroughly than competitive resins and also had much
less fishy odor. These resins have provided typically 30 day runs, whereas
domestic resins provide about 20 day runs.
Condensate Polisher Problems
Automatic valve problems were almost universally reported by the

respondents. Control problems were also universally reported. Several
problems with sight glasses were reported.
Table A-2
Powdered Resin Testing Parameters
Test Resin Tested Accept/Reject Criteria
Percent (%) Moisture Cation/Anion 50-57%
Capacity NH4/OH 4.3 meq/dry g/3.0
H+/OH /3.5
Na 0.0044 max
A-18
Table A-2
Powdered Resin Testing Parameters
Test Resin Tested Accept/Reject Criteria
% OH Anion 85 min
% CO3 Anion 10 max
% Cl- Anion 1 max
% SO4 Anion 3 max
Contaminants - % Ash
Fe 100 ppm max
Al 50 PPM max
Cu 50 ppm max
Na 100 ppm max
K 50 ppm max
Mg 50 ppm max
Ca 300 ppm max
SiO2 100 ppm max
%V/V 30% min
Supernatant Turbidity <50 NTU
One respondent reported blowouts of sight glasses with vessels on line

with condensate pumps starting up. This resulted in modified startup
procedures which now call for startup without polishers on line until flow
is established Then polishers are filled, vented, and brought on line.
Another respondent noted resin loss, equipment damage, and a unit trip
based upon failure of sight glasses. Armored windows, plastic instead of
glass, and the proper bolt torquing sequence is now used. Others
complained of sight glasses which easily foul and become unusable. Poor
A-19
flow distribution in service vessels was mentioned as problems. Blistering

problems with rubber lining were cited.
Several instances of resin intrusion and a couple of instances of regenerant

intrusion were reported. One European manufacturer reported caustic
leakage into feedwater which resulted in extensive damage. Similarly, a
large hydrochloric acid leak into the feedwater system was reported.
Exhaustion and overrun of polishers resulted in an acid or caustic polisher
effluent which has resulted in extensive damge and has led to restrictions
in the use of polishing. One respondent described a massive condenser
leak which resulted in low pH water being routed to the boiler. The
incident resulted in a revision of station procedures, and the revision
resulted in shutdown limits for station.
One of the visited stations has experienced several incidents relating to the
polisher. These include resin intrusions to the steam generator due to
lateral leaks. Also, the station has experienced the transfer of one bed on
top of another in the resin receiving vessel. A key lock switch was
installed on the resin inlet valve to minimize the potential for recurrence.
Resin intrusions were frequency mentioned with powdered resin units.

One of the visited stations indicated that a resin intrusion occurred which
was due to improper assembly of a septum.
Some regenerant and chemical intrusions resulted from operator errors,

which required correction following the incidents.
One of the visited utilities experienced corrosion damage of the low-

pressure turbine at one unit. While this damage was not related to the
condensate polisher, the presence of the polisher contributed to the
incident. The utility noted that for the turbine problems, the L and L-1
blades were clean, whereas the inner blades were pitted. The damage was
reported as extensive pitting of the low-pressure turbine buckets,
diaphragm blades, and tendons. Investigations concluded that the cause
of the corrosion was turbine contamination which occurred during a
major condenser tube leak. The leak was caused when an extraction
expansion joint failed, falling into the condenser, causing six condenser
tubes to fail. This failure resulted in upward spraying of circulating water.
Prior to shutdown, it was decided to burn out the coal mills, which, due to
various problems, required an additional 4 hours of operation. Chemistry
monitoring showed that water quality was adequate downstream of the
polishers during the burnout period. These monitoring data eventually
were determined to have provided a false sense of security for operating
personnel. Apparently, the ruptured tubes sprayed contaminated water
A-20
directly on the turbine during the period of the burnout of the mills.
Analysis of the turbine blade deposits was provided and showed that the
entire low-pressure turbine was involved with chloride contamination,
not just a specific area such as the Wilson Zone. In the future, the utility
will not burn out the mills but will vacuum out the mills.
One of the visited utilities experienced a failure with the cation

regeneration tank PVC underdrain. The underdrain melted as a result of
excess heat which was generated by excessive acid concentration.
One of the visited units reported an intrusion of hydraulic fluid into the
condensate system. Significant fouling of the condensate polisher resin
occurred. A surfactant was used to help clean the resins. It was believed
that none of the foulant got past the condensate polishers.
One of the visited stations reported a problem with the original resin traps
down-stream of the service vessels. The screens would rip whenever they
were back-washed because there was no support for the screens in the
reverse flow direction.
Poorly located valves which were not easily operable due to their poor
location were also described. Water hammer problems were cited with
resultant equipment damage. One respondent noted that PVC materials
tend to break and should not be used. Plugged strainers were noted as
problems also. One respondent suggested that locations of valves and
controls should be designed with access in mind. A plea for simplicity was
also given.
Automatic silica and sodium analyzers were cited as frequent problems.
Bead Resin Systems
Problems with determining the location of the cation and anion interface
were reported. Achieving a good separation was also universally reported
as a concern. Improvement in the means of separation and regeneration of
resin was often noted as a need.
One respondent described a resin intrusion which resulted from

backwashing resin out of the CRT and into a service vessel bypass line.
The resin was routed to the boiler, which resulted in high boiler water
conductivity.
Many respondents mentioned problems with acid and caustic metering

pumps. Frequently recurring problems with leaks in acid regeneration
A-21
piping, as well as problems with diaphragm valves, sticking controls, and

operator’s error, were reported. Poor quality caustic soda was reported to
have caused chloride contamination of the boiler water at one unit.
A poorly screened subsurface lateral was described to have caused a

problem with excessive rinse requirements. Resin migrated inside the
lateral, which caused the long rinse problem. Screen-wrapped laterals
were noted as poor design by some users.
Resin trap plugging problems were also frequently experienced.
Poorly designed resin transfer lines were mentioned by one respondent.

Resin transfer lines were too long or contained too many fittings.
Powered Resin Systems
Resin intrusions for powdered resin users were reported. Poor element
sealing and attachment design were often cited; also poor precoating and
operation due to the inability of resin to reach the tops of the elements.
Sodium leakage from a bad batch of resin was mentioned. Subsequently,
the station has required the manufacturer to analyze resin with each
shipment.
Low ionic exchange capacity was often mentioned as a drawback for these
systems.
Other problems resulted from precoat erosion due to the inlet flow.
Element failure and fouling were cited as continuing problems. Early

element attachment mechanisms were poor on some vendor designs.
Improvements
Suggestions for improvement of condensate polishing systems were

solicited. The following areas of improvement were suggested. It should
be expected that this list would coincide with the problem listing.
Improved resin separation processes were suggested. Better resin cleaning

processes including both mechanical and chemical cleaning processes
were needed. Improvements in resin transfer processes were also
suggested.
A-22
One responder requested that systems be as simple and trouble free as

possible to minimize the amount of operator attention required.
One responder suggested the addition of upstream filters and also a

downstream cation bed for improved sodium removal. Upstream cation
beds were also often suggested.
One utility responded that the most significant change to improve

polisher performance would be to include a lead cation exchanger
upstream of the mixed bed exchanger. This arrangement is used at one of
the utility’s nuclear generating stations. The advantages of using lead
cation exchanger are as follows:
• Filtration would be performed by the cation exchanger.
• The kinetics in the mixed bed unit are improved because of the
acidic effluent for the cation exchanger. This would reduce the
leakage in the mixed bed.
• The mixed bed would require fewer regenerations when in the
ammonia cycle. (Currently, typical mixed beds, operating beyond
ammonia break, are regenerated every 30 to 60 days. This would be
expected to increase to 6 months with a lead cation exchanger.
Improvement in sight glasses or the installation of continuous sight

glasses was suggested.
Enclosure of control panels to control dust and dirt was suggested. The
age of control systems for some polishing systems resulted in several
responders indicating that control systems have been retrofitted with
microprocessor based systems.
Powdered resin systems should have better methods of controlling

precoating and application of body feed, better retaining element designs,
and better methods of attachment.
Improvements in acid and caustic pumps were suggested.
One utility reported that it does not balance flow for parallel beds. This
includes both the powdered resin and the deep bed systems. They have
not seen two beds exhausted at the same time as a result of not flow
balancing.
One respondent suggested the need for a multichannel analyzer module

with cation and specific conductivity, chloride, sodium, and silica analysis
capability. The objective e would be for the module to rotate through all of
A-23
the condensate polisher sample points at least once per day for
record/troubleshooting purposes.
Wastewater Disposal and Miscellaneous Issues
Various responses were received about the required treatment of

condensate polisher wastes. Most respondents noted that wastewater
disposal was relatively easy by disposal in ash ponds. A few respondents
neutralized wastes and provided further levels of treatment.
One respondent practiced zero discharge at all of the stations and

practiced chemical recovery and reuse to the greatest extent practical.
Recoverable water was recycled and blended with incoming raw water.
High conductivity effluent was neutralized and used on ash control or
concentrated with water recovery to demineralizer or cooling water
circuits.
Most noted that disposal was an important issues, even those who could
dispose of wastewater relatively easily.
In-Place Regeneration
The vast majority of respondents were not in favor of the use of in-place
regenerated condensate polishers. A few respondents indicated that they
successfully used such polishers. The hazard of chemical injection and
unfavorable separation were often cited as problems. One respondent
noted that the inadvertent introduction of caustic from an in-place
regenerated polisher destroyed a stainless steel superheater.
Data from the visited utilities are given in the following tables.
Table A-3
Utility A Generating Station Data
Station Information Plant S Plant W Plant Y
Year commissioned 1982 1976 1974
Type of.steam generator Twin drum Once-through Drum

supercritical
Type of fuel Coal Coal Coal
A-24
Table A-3
Utility A Generating Station Data
Steam generator manufacturer CE CE CE
Steaming capacity, 1000 lb/h 5790 6269 2568
Turbine manufacturer GE GE GE
Unit size, MW, each 818 865 350
Type of operation Peaking Baseload Peaking
Cycle chemical treatment AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia

hydrazine hydrazine and hydrazine
phosphate as
needed
Circulating Water System Cooling tower Cooling tower Cooling towers
Circulating water source Lake Lake River water

300 mg/1 TDS TDS=~300 mg/L
Condenser materials
Tubes 90/10, 70/30 Cu/Ni Stainless steel Admiralty
Tubesheet Muntz Carbon steel Muntz
LP feed water heaters

Tubes Copper alloy Carbon steel Monel/stainless
steel
Tubesheet Carbon steel Carbon steel Carbon steel
HP feedwater heaters
Tubes Copper alloy Stainless steel Monel
Table A-4
Service Vessel Design Data
Condensate flow rate, gpm/unit 10,800 11,400 2000
A-25
Table A-4
Number of service vessels per unit 3 4 1
Service flow rate per vessel, gpm 3600 3785 2000
Number of spare service vessels 0 1 0
Vessel design pressure, psi 600 200 100
Service vessel diameter and straight 6’ × 11’ (911 ft2) 9’−6” × 4’−6” 5’ − 6’−3”
side
Vessel construction materials CS, rubber-lined CS, rubber-lined CS, rubber-lined
Resin volume per vessel,

Cation, ft3 NA 142 NA
Anion, ft3 NA 71 NA
Resin bed depth, ft, or precoat 0.2 3 0.2

loading, lb/ft2
∆P of newly regenerated vessel at

maximum flow rate, psi 3−5 1 5
Cation to anion resin ratio NA 2 to 1 NA
Operating cycle
Startup and condenser leak NA Hydrogen NA
Normal operation NA Ammonia NA
Table A-5
Utility B Generating Station Data
Station Information N Station C Station
Year commissioned 1977/1982 1965/1972
Type of steam generator CE Drum CCRR Universal pressure, cyclone fired
Type of fuel Coal Coal
A-26
Table A-5
Utility B Generating Station Data
Steam generator manufacturer CE B&W
Steaming capacity, 1000 lb/h 4160 2500/3961
Turbine manufacturer GE GE
Unit size, MW, each 550 358/567
Type of operation Load-following Load-following
Cycle chemical treatment AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia and catalyzed

catalyzed hydrazine hydrazine
Circulating Water System Cooling Lake Cooling Lake
Circulating water source
Condenser materials
Tubes 90-10/Admiralty 90-10/Admiralty
Tubesheet Muntz --
LP feedwater heaters
Tubes Carbon steel Carbon steel
Tubesheet Carbon steel Carbon steel
Tubes Carbon steel Carbon steel and stainless steel
Tubesheet Carbon steel --
Table A-6
Utility C
Condensate flow rate, gpm/unit 7300 4500/6800
Number of service vessels per unit 2/4 3/4
Service flow rate per vessel, gpm 3650/2433 2300
A-27
Table A-6
Utility C
Number of spare service vessels 0/1 1
Vessel design pressure, psi 600 450/600
Service vessel diameter and straight side, ft 8’ spherical 7.5’ × 4.5’
Vessel construction materials CS, rubber-lined CS, rubber-lined

Cation, ft3 100 88
Anion, ft3 50 44
Resin bed depth, ft -- 3.3
∆P of newly regenerated vessel at maximum

flow rate, psi -- --
Cation to anion resin ratio 2 to 1 2 to 1
Operating cycle
Startup and condenser leak Hydrogen Hydrogen
Normal operation Ammonia Ammonia
Table A-7
Utility D Generating Station Data
Station Information N Unit 2 R Units 1 & 2 N Units 3 & 4
Year commissioned
Type of steam generator Once-through Once-through Once-through

supercritical supercritical supercritical
Type of fuel Natural gas Natural gas Coal
Steam generator B&W B&W CE

manufacturer
Steaming, capacity, lb/h 3,250,000 250,000 3,250,000
A-28
Table A-7
Station Information N Unit 2 R Units 1 & 2 N Units 3 & 4
Turbine manufacturer GE Westinghouse GE
Type of operation Cyclic Cyclic Baseloaded
Cycle chemical treatment AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia and

hydrazine hydrazine hydrazine
Circulating Water System Cooling tower Cooling tower Cooling tower
Circulating water source Reservoir River Reservoir

TDS = 1700 mg/l TDS = 3000 mg/l TDS=1700 mg/l
Condenser materials
Tubes 304 stainless steel 316 stainless steel 304 stainless steel
Tubesheet Carbon steel Carbon steel 304 stainless steel
clad carbon steel
Tubes Carbon steel and Stainless steel 304 stainless steel
stainless steel
Tubes Carbon steel Carbon steel and Carbon steel and
stainless steel stainless steel
Table A-8
Station Information N Unit 2 R Unit 1 & 2 N Units 3 & 4
Condensate flow rate, gpm/unit 4600 4600 4900
Service flow rate per vessel 1533 1533 1633
A-29
Table A-8
Station Information N Unit 2 R Unit 1 & 2 N Units 3 & 4
Service vessel diameter and straight side 6’ × 5’ 6’ × 5’ 6’ × 6’

Cation, ft3 55 55 55
Anion, ft3 27 27 27
Resin bed depth, ft 3 3 3
∆P of newly regenerated vessel at 10 10 10

maximum flow rate, psi
Cation to anion resin ration 2 to 1 2 to 1 2 to 1
Operating cycle
Startup and condenser leak Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen
Normal operation Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia
Table A-9
Station T Station M Station M1

Station Information Unit 1 Unit 8 Unit 1
Year commissioned 1970 1967 1974

Type of fuel Gas Gas Lignite
Steam generator manufacturer B&W CE CE
Steaming, capacity, 1000 lb/h 3938 3980 4300
A-30
Table A-9
Station T Station M Station M1

Turbine manufacturer Westinghouse GE Westinghouse
Type of operation Load-following Cyclic Baseload
Cycle chemical treatment AVT-hydrazine AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia and

hydrazine hydrazine
Circulating Water System Cooling lake Cooling lake Cooling lake
Circulating water source Lake Lake Lake

~700 mg/l TDS ~300 mg/l TDS ~200 mg/l TDS
Condenser Materials
Tubes Stainless steel Admiralty 304 stainless steel
Tubesheet Muntz (Retubed, Muntz Carbon steel
was Admiralty)
Tubes Carbon Stainless steel Carbon steel/
steel/stainless steel stainless steel
Tubes Stainless steel Carbon steel/ Carbon steel/
stainless steel stainless steel
Table A-10
Station T Station MC Station M1

Condensate flow rate, gpm/unit 10,200 8533 8400
A-31
Table A-10
Station T Station MC Station M1

Service vessel diameter and 6’ × 6’4” (795 ft2) 7’-6’ × 5’-0” 5’-6” × 7’-2”
straight side
Vessel construction materials CS CS, rubber-lined CS

Cation, ft3 NA 86 NA
Anion, ft3 NA 43 NA
Resin bed depth, ft or precoat 0.2 3 0.2

loading, lb/ft2
∆P of newly regenerated vessel at <5 6 3−6

Cation to anion resin ratio 1 to 1 2 to 1 2 to 1
Operating cycle
Startup and condenser leak NA Hydrogen NA
Normal operation NA Hydrogen NA
Table A-11
Utility E Generating Station Data
Unit O Unit R
Station Information Units 1 & 2 Unit A Station M
Year commissioned 1971/1973 1965 1971

Type of fuel Natural gas Natural gas Coal (50% slurry)
A-32
Table A-11
Utility E Generating Station Data
Unit O Unit R
Station Information Units 1 & 2 Unit A Station M
Steam generator Foster Wheeler B&W CE

manufacturer
Steaming capacity, lb/h 5,740,000 3,320,000 5,450,000
Turbine manufacturer GE Westinghouse GE
Unit size, MW each 800 480 800
Type of operation Cyclic Cyclic Baseloaded
Cycle chemical treatment AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia and AVT-ammonia and

hydrazine hydrazine hydrazine
Circulating Water System Once-through Once-through Cooling towers
Circulating water source Seawater Seawater River

TDS=14,000 mg/l
Condenser materials
Tubes 90/10 Cu/Ni 90/10 Cu/Ni AL6X stainless steel
Tubesheet Muntz Muntz Aluminum bronze
Tubes Carbon steel and Carbon steel Carbon steel
stainless steel
Tubes Carbon steel Carbon steel Carbon steel
Table A-12
Station Information Station O Station R/ Station M

Station A
Condensate flow rate, gpm/ unit 9000 6000 9000
A-33
Table A-12
Station Information Station O Station R/ Station M

Station A
Number of spare service vessels 1 common for 2 1 common for 2 1 common for 2
units units units
Vessel design pressure, psi 430 275 >300
Service vessel diameter and straight 8’ × 5’ 8’ × 4’−6” 8’−6” × 4’−6”

side

Cation, ft3 98 100 114
Anion, ft3 49 50 57
Resin bed depth, ft 3 3 3
∆P of newly regenerated vessel at 20 20 40

Cation to anion resin ratio 20 to 1 2 to 1 2 to 1
Operating cycle
Startup and condenser leak
Normal operation Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen
Ammonia Ammonia Ammonia
A-34
B
EUROPEAN PRACTICES
United Kingdom
Conventional fossil-fired power stations in the United Kingdom use drum boilers and
are not normally equipped with condensate polishing. Three stations were retrofitted
with naked mixed bed plants because they were experiencing chronic condenser
problems, and at that time it was considered to be cost-effective to adopt polishing. All
nuclear, gas-cooled power plants with once-through steam generators were equipped
with polishing plants as original equipment. The two early nuclear OTSGs were initially
equipped with partial-flow polishing systems, but these were subsequently upgraded to
full-flow systems. They were originally also provided with solka-floc type prefilters,
although these are not used. One of these earlier nuclear power stations, now
successfully operates in the morpholinium mode at pH 9.6-9.7 with impurity levels in
its final polished water of less than 1 ppb. To facilitate this mode of operation the
polishing system was modified to include a high efficiency, bottom transfer
separation/regeneration plant.
The next generation of gas-cooled reactor stations, the advanced gas-cooled reactors
(AGRs), were all supplied with full-flow condensate polishing, although some station-
to-station differences in the actual designs do exist. It is of interest that condensate
polisher system effluent conductivity values are, as a safety feature, programmed to trip
the unit if preset values are exceeded. Bypass systems are not provided so that AGRs
can be operated only with full-flow H-OH form condensate polishers in service. The
first AGRs to be built employed candle filters and cation-mixed bed polishers although
the prefilter stage is not now used. AGRs subsequently built have used deep mixed
beds together with powdered resin filters, with the last of the series to be commissioned
reverting to the cation-mixed bed design. All of these plants have generally performed
very well, although two suffered from service vessel flow distribution problems. Over
the years, operating in the H-OH mode, they have consistently produced a water which
meets the AGR feedwater target specification of less than 2 ppb sodium, chloride and
sulfate with most of them achieving impurity levels below 0.2 ppb. These reactors have
not suffered from waterside corrosion attributable to feedwater impurities nor have
they suffered from turbine corrosion problems.
The first PWR has recently been commissioned in the United Kingdom and it employs a
full-flow, naked mixed bed polishing plant and is equipped with a high efficiency
bottom transfer separation/regeneration system.
B-1
European Practices
Ireland
The Electricity Supply Board of Ireland employs naked, mixed bed designs at five of its
fossil-fired stations. A gas-fired generating station was the first to adopt the high
efficiency bottom transfer separation/regeneration system. Its use has provided
regenerated mixed bed resins which, when operating in the H-OH mode, give impurity
leakages of less than 0.05 ppb. A coal-fired drum unit has improved its conventional
resin separation system and regeneration procedures to allow it to operate in the
ammonium form at pH 9.5-9.6 for extended periods with impurity leakages of about 0.3
ppb. The polishing system design on this station is of interest as it is based upon a split
condenser hotwell design; i.e., condensate is pumped from the “untreated” side of the
condenser hotwell through the polishing plant into the “clean” side of the hotwell.
Condensate is then pumped from the “clean” hotwell into the feed system. As a safety
feature, overflow weirs allow automatic passage of water from the “untreated side” to
the “clean” side in the event of polishing system problems so that water flow to the unit
is not inhibited.
Germany
In Germany condensate polishing is widely used on fossil-fired, once-through boilers

and on some drum boilers. There is some use of in-place regeneration in German
1
plants.
Designs vary with once-through units which tend to use full-flow polishing, while some
units with drum boilers use partial polishing. Some multi-unit stations with partial
polishing have the ability to use the available equipment to provide full-flow polishing
on selected units in the event of a condenser leak or other cycle water quality problem.
A common feature on German condensate polishing plants is the use of a filtration
stage before the ion exchange beds. This two-stage polishing approach allows them to
continually filter the condensate and to use the ion exchange stage as needed. The filters
are normally of the candle type with a stainless steel or polypropylene central core
wound with polypropylene fibers. The use of this pre-filtration stage is believed to
improve the performance of the whole polishing plant.
The most common configuration of deep bed polishing plants is that of a lead cation
followed by a mixed bed. This allows ammonia, if used, to be removed on the cation
bed and the mixed bed to operate in the hydrogen cycle as well as being regenerated
infrequently. On stations with very low ammonia levels in their condensate, such as
those using neutral oxygen treatment, the use of the prefilter, mixed bed design has
been adopted. Plants of this general design and using in-place regeneration are said to
produce water containing less than 1 ppb of the common impurities. The use of in-place
regeneration is common in Germany, with inert resins being used on some plants to
B-2
European Practices
improve separation. For security against the entry of chemicals into the steam/water
cycle during regeneration, a system of two isolation valves and a relief valve is used.
Separate bed polishing plants are also in use, i.e., cation-anion and cation-anion-cation
plants. Most of these use in-place regeneration with some using counter-current
regeneration. Impurity levels in the polished water from these plants are said to be less
than 0.2 ppb1. Polishing plants are operated only in the hydrogen cycle.
Special regeneration techniques such as ammonia washing of regenerated resins are not
used in Germany. Commonly used regeneration chemicals are hydrochloric acid and
sodium hydroxide with sulfuric acid being rarely used. Resin ratios vary from 1:2 to 1:3
anion:cation resin in the mixed beds following cation beds and from 1:1 to 1:2 on the
mixed beds without a lead cation unit. Both gel and macroporous resins are used with
macroporous resins being preferred for plants operating with linear flow rates of over
2
33 gpm/ft (80m/h).
Other European Countries
It is difficult to generalize about the practices in other European countries but the use of
cation-mixed beds is common although with external regeneration. Separate bed
polishers have been built, or are being built, in Denmark and Holland. A significant
proportion of power in Sweden is generated by BWRs (42%) and these, of course, use
condensate polishing practices similar to those used worldwide on plants of this type.
France has a very large nuclear power industry with 72% of its generation (about 58
GWe) from nuclear power stations which are predominantly PWR RSGs. It is of interest
that they have decided not to use condensate polishing on their PWRs.
In-Place Regeneration
In-place regeneration of condensate polishing plant resins is not favored although, as

already mentioned, it is used on fossil-fired power stations in Germany. There are main
concerns with in-place regeneration. One is the risk of introducing regenerants directly
into the steam cycle. The other concern is the fact that service vessels are not well suited
for efficient regeneration either from the viewpoint of resin separation of regenerant
distribution. Inert resins are employed on some in situ regeneration condensate
polishing plants but problems have been experienced with these resins. Effectively
cleaning resins in service vessels is also a problem with in-place regeneration.
In-place regeneration is used on the cation-mixed bed polishing plants at a European

PWR station. Studies2 showed that sodium leakages were about 0.45 ppb and that these
improved to 0.1-0.2 ppb when inert resins were introduced. This was the first plant
application of inert resins. With inert resins the mean sulfate leakage was about 1 ppb
and that of chloride less than 0.2 ppb. No anion leakage data was obtained prior to the
B-3
European Practices
adoption of inert resins. When the beds were taken out of service for regeneration,
double isolation was carried out.
References
1. A. Bursik and F. De Dardel. Comparative Evaluation of Condensate Polisher Design

and Performance. 50th International Water Conference, Pittsburgh, USA, October
1989.
2. M. A. Sadler, J. C. Bates, D. J. Gardner, & A. D. Thomas. A Study of the Performance

of the Triobed Condensate Polishing Plant System at Doel Power Station. Nuclear
Engineering, 1979, Volume 18, No. 6, pp 389-399.
B-4
C
ECONOMIC FACTORS
Table C-1
Input Values for New Plant
1994 Dollars
New Mixed Bed New Powdered

Condesate New Mixed Bed Resin
Polisher Condensate Polisher Condensate
Item (Hydrogen) (Ammonia) Polisher
Total Condensate Flow, gpm 6000 6000 6000
Generating Capacity, MW 440 440 440
Percent Capacity of Each Vessel 50% 50% 50%
Number of Vessels 3 3 3
Normal Days/Regen or Prect at 5 30 7

100% Load/Vessel
Regen or Prect/Y - 100% Load 219.0 36.5 156.4
66 Baumé Acid Used, lb/regen 550 550 0
66 Baumé Acid Cost, $/lb $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
50% Caustic Used, lb/regen 324 324 0
50% Caustic Cost, $/lb $0.20 $0.20 $0.20
Precoat Used, dry lb/precoat 0 0 107
Precoat Cost, $/lb $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
Electrical Demand Rate, $/kW $531.00 $531.00 $531.00
Aux Electrical Usage 0.025 0.025 0.025

Rate/$/kWh
Fixed Annual Labor Cost $8,000 $8,000 $4,000
C-1
Economic Factors
Table C-1
1994 Dollars

Fixed Annual Maintenance Cost $10,000 $10,000 $5,000
Years per Resin Replacement 3 3 0

3
Cation Resin Volume/Vessel, ft 96 96 0
3
Cation Resin Cost, $/ft $130.00 $130.00 $0.00
3
Anion Resin Volume/Vessel, ft 48 48 0
3
Anion Resin Cost, $/ft $240.00 $240.00 $0.00
Total Condensate Flow Rate, 6000 6000 6000

gpm
Ammonia Feed, ppm 1.5 0.5 0.1
Ammonia Cost, $/lb $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Boiler Blowdown w/o Cond 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

Polish
Boiler Blowdown with CP, % of 0.25% 0.25% 0.25%

steam
Boiler Blowdown Cost, $/1000 2.50 2.50 2.50

gal
Fixed Charge Rate 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Chemical Cleaning, $120,000 $120,000 $120,000

cost/cleaning (1994)
Years Between Cleaning w/o 4 4 4

Cond Polish
Years Between Cleanings with 6 6 6

Cond Polish
C-2
Economic Factors
Table C-1
1994 Dollars

Pump/Motor Efficiency 70% 70% 70%
Demin Water Cost/1000 gal $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Avg P Drop Across Cond Polish, 40 40 30

psi
Weighted Avg Cost of Capital 10% 10% 10%

3
Demin Water, gal/ft resin 275 300 0
Time Saved at Warm 50% Hold 6 6 6

Polish, h
Number of Warm Startups/Year 4 4 4
Time Saved at Cold 50% Hold 24 24 24

Point, h
Number of Cold Startups/Year 1 1 1
Dif Replacement Power Cost, $0.010 $0.010 $0.010

$/kWh
Increased Availability, days/y 5 5 5
Demin Water, gal per cond flow, 0 0 2.17

gpm
Improved Turbine Efficiency, 0.20% 0.20% 0.20%

%/y
Table C-2
Input Values for Retrofit Plant
1994 Dollars
C-3
Economic Factors
Retrofit Mixed Bed Retrofit Mixed Bed Retrofit

Condensate Condensate Polisher Powdered
Polisher (Ammonia) Resin
Item (Hydrogen) Condensate
Total Condensate Flow, gpm 4700 4700 4700
Generating Capacity, MW 360 360 360
Percent Capacity of Vessels 50% 50% 50%
Number of Vessels 3 3 3
Normal Days/Regen or Prect at 5 30 7

100% Load/Vessel
Regen or Prect/Y - 100% Load 219.0 36.5 156.4
66 Baumé Acid Used, lb/regen 550 500 0
66 Baumé Acid Cost, $/lb $0.05 $0.05 $0.05
50% Caustic Used, lb/regen 324 324 0
50% Caustic Cost, $/lb $0.20 $0.20 $0.20
Precoat Used, dry lb/precoat 0 0 84
Precoat Cost, $/lb $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
Electrical Demand Rate, $/kW $531.00 $531.00 $531.00
Aux Electrical Usage Rate, $26.34 $26.34 $26.34

$/MWh
Fixed Annual Labor Cost $8,000 $8,000 $4,000
Fixed Annual Maintenance Cost $10,000 $10,000 $5,000
Years per Resin Replacement 3 3 0
Total Cation Resin Volume, 90 90 0

3
ft /vessel
3
Cation Resin Cost, ft $130.00 $130.00 $0.00
3
Total Anion Resin Volume, ft 51 51 0
3
Anion Resin Cost, $/ft $240.00 $240.00 $0.00
C-4
Economic Factors
Table C-2
1994 Dollars

Total Condensate Flow Rate, 4700 4700 4700

gpm
Ammonia Feed, ppm 1.5 0.5 0.1
Ammonia Cost,$/lb $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Boiler Blowdown w/o Cond 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

Polish
Boiler Blowdown with CP, % of 0.25% 0.25% 0.75%

steam
Boiler Blowdown Cost, $/1000 2.50 2.50 2.50

gal
Fixed Charge Rate 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Chemical Cleaning, $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

cost/cleaning (1994)
Years Between Cleaning w/o 4 4 4

Cond Polish
Years Between Cleaning with 6 6 6

Cond Polish
Pump/Motor Efficiency 70% 70% 70%
Demin Water Cost/1000 gal $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Avg P Drop Across Cond Polish, 40 40 30

psi
Weighted Avg Cost of Capital 10% 10% 10%

3
Demin Water, gal/ft resin 275 300 275
C-5
Economic Factors
Table C-2
1994 Dollars

Time Saved at Warm 50% Hold 6 6 6

Point, h
Number of Warm Startups/year 4 4 4
Time Saved at Cold 50% Hold 24 24 24

Point, h
Number of Cold Startups/Year 1 1 1
Dif Replacement Power Cost, $0.010 $0.010 $0.010

$/kWh
Increased Availability, days/y 5 5 5
Demin Water, gal per cond flow, 0 0 2.17

gpm
Reduced Turbine Losses, %/y 0.20% 0.20% 0.20%
Table C-3
Levelizing Factors for New Plant
Annual
O&M & Future O&M & Capacity
Electrical Electrical Present Annual Adjusted
Replacement Replacement Worth Present Capacity Present
Year Escalation Costs Factor Costs Factor Costs
1994 1.000 1.000 0.9091 0.9091 85.0% 0.7727
1995 1.054 1.054 0.8264 0.8710 85.0% 0.7404
1996 1.054 1.111 0.7513 0.8346 85.0% 0.7094
C-6
Economic Factors
Table C-3
Annual
1997 1.055 1.172 0.6830 0.8005 85.0% 0.6804
1998 1.055 1.236 0.6209 0.7677 85.0% 0.6526
1999 1.055 1.304 0.5645 0.7364 85.0% 0.6259
2000 1.055 1.376 0.5132 0.7063 85.0% 0.6003
2001 1.055 1.452 0.4665 0.6773 85.0% 0.5757
2002 1.055 1.532 0.4241 0.6496 85.0% 0.5522
2003 1.055 1.616 0.3855 0.6230 85.0% 0.5295
2004 1.055 1.705 0.3505 0.5976 70.0% 0.4183
2005 1.055 1.799 0.3186 0.5731 70.0% 0.4011
2006 1.055 1.898 0.2897 0.5497 70.0% 0.3848
2007 1.056 2.004 0.2633 0.5276 70.0% 0.3693
2008 1.056 2.116 0.2943 0.5066 70.0% 0.3546
2009 1.056 2.235 0.2176 0.4862 70.0% 0.3404
2010 1.056 2.360 0.1978 0.4668 70.0% 0.3267
2011 1.056 2.492 0.1799 0.4483 70.0% 0.3138
2012 1.056 2.631 0.1635 0.4302 70.0% 0.3012
2013 1.056 2.779 0.1486 0.4129 70. 0% 0.2890
2014 1.056 2.934 0.1351 0.3964 50.0% 0.1982
2015 1.056 3.099 0.1228 0.3805 50.0% 0.1903
2016 1.056 3.272 0.1117 0.3655 50.0% 0.1828
C-7
Economic Factors
Table C-3
Annual
2017 1.056 3.455 0.1015 0.3507 50.0% 0.1754
2018 1.056 3.649 0.0923 0.3368 50.0% 0.1684
2019 1.056 3.853 0.0839 0.3233 50.0% 0.1616
2020 1.056 4.069 0.0763 0.3105 50.0% 0.1552
2021 1.056 4.297 0.0693 0.2978 50.0% 0.1489
2022 1.056 4.538 0.0630 0.2859 50.0% 0.1429
2023 1.056 4.792 0.0573 0.2746 50.0% 0.1373
2024 1.056 5.060 0.0521 0.2636 25.0% 0.0659
2025 1.056 5.343 0.0474 0.2533 25.0% 0.0633
2026 1.056 5.643 0.0431 0.2432 25.0% 0.0608
2027 1.056 5.959 0.0391 0.2330 25.0% 0.0582
2028 1.056 6.292 0.0356 0.2240 25.0% 0.0560
2029 1.056 6.645 0.0323 0.2146 25.0% 0.0537
2030 1.056 7.017 0.0294 0.2063 25.0% 0.0516
2031 1.056 7.410 0.0267 0.1978 25.0% 0.0495
2032 1.056 7.825 0.0243 0.1901 25.0% 0.0475
2033 1.056 8.263 0.0221 0.1826 25.0% 0.0457
Sums 9,7787 18,1052 ----- 12,1517
Levelizing Factors ------ 1,8515 ----- 1,2427
C-8
Economic Factors
Table C-4
Levelizing Factors for Retrofit Plant
Annual
1994 1.000 1.000 0.9091 0.9091 80.0% 0.7273
1995 1.054 1.054 0.8264 0.8710 80.0% 0.6968
1996 1.054 1.111 0.7513 0.8346 80.0% 0.6677
1997 1.055 1.172 0.6830 0.8005 80.0% 0.6404
1998 1.055 1.236 0.6209 0.7677 80.0% 0.6142
1999 1.055 1.304 0.5645 0.7364 60.0% 0.4418
2000 1.055 1.376 0.5132 0.7063 60.0% 0.4238
2001 1.055 1.452 0.4665 0.6773 60.0% 0.4064
2002 1.055 1.532 0.4241 0.6496 60.0% 0.3898
2003 1.055 1.616 0.3855 0.6230 60.0% 0.3738
2004 1.055 1.705 0.3505 0.5976 40.0% 0.2390
2005 1.055 1.799 0.3186 0.5731 40.0% 0.2292
2006 1.055 1.898 0.2897 0.5497 40.0% 0.2199
2007 1.056 2.004 0.2633 0.5276 40.0% 0.2110
2008 1.056 2.116 0.2394 0.5066 40.0% 0.2026
2009 1.056 2.235 0.2176 0.4862 25.0% 0.1216
2010 1.056 2.360 0.1978 0.4668 25.0% 0.1167
2011 1.056 2.492 0.1799 0.4483 25.0% 0.1121
2012 1.056 2.631 0.1635 0.4302 25.0% 0.1076
2013 1.506 2.779 0.1486 0.4129 25.0% 0.1032
C-9
Economic Factors
Table C-4
Levelizing Factors for Retrofit Plant
Annual
Sums 8.5134 12.5746 ----- 7.0449
Levelizing Factors ------ 1.477 ----- 0.8275
C-10
D
RESIN INFORMATION
Several resin analysis procedures are presented in this appendix to provide general
information and guidance. These procedures are not given in sufficient detail to allow
direct implementation. In addition, alternate approaches may be available for each
analysis.
Method A--Perfect Bead Content
Applications
The percent perfect, uncracked beads of any spherical ion exchange resin is determined
microscopically.
Principle
A sample of ion exchange resin is spread on a glass grid and visually inspected with the
aid of a microscope. Each square of the grid contains approximately 100 beads. Cracked
and fragmented beads in five squares of the grid are counted and subtracted from the
calculated number of particles in the five squares to obtain the number of perfect beads.
The results are reported as percent perfect beads.
Procedure
1. Place a portion of the sample in a petri dish with a grid of approximately 1/4 inch
(0.64 cm) squares. Arrange the beads so that they are closely packed and single
layered.
2. Set the microscope at 15x. Under this magnification, approximately 100-150 beads
are visible in the microscope field.
3. Select a square and calculate the number of particles (*) it contains by multiplying
the number across by the number down.
4. Within the same square, count the number of imperfect beads (*) (cracked, pocked,
and fragmented).
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 four times.
D-1
Resin Information
(*) Estimate the number of who beads the fragments would yield and use this number
in determining both the total number of beads and the number of imperfect beads.
For example, if a square contained 99 whole beads and 3 fragments, which if pulled
together would be equal to 1 whole bead, this would be equivalent to 99% whole
beads and 1% fragments.
Calculations
average number of perfect beads

%Perfect Beads = x 100%
total number of beads
(eq. 30)
A-B
= x 100%
A
where A= total number of beads

B = number of imperfect beads
Method B--Exchange Capacity of Hydroxide Form Anion Resin
Application
Exchange capacity on a wet volume basis is determined for strong base anion exchange
resin.
Reference
ASTM Standard D-2187
Principle
The capacity of a known resin wet volume is determined using ASTM procedures:
1. Measure into separate 100 mL beakers three tapped and settled 10 mL sample
volumes of hydroxide form anion resin.
2. Determine the milliequivalents of the anion exchange resin in accordance with

Method I of ASTM D-2187.
Calculate the anionic salt-splitting capacity (Cs) and total capacity (CT) in
milliequivalents per wet milliliter of resin as follows:
D-2
Resin Information
10N a (A - 2Y)
CS =
V
(eq. 31)
10CN c
CT =
V
where:
C = Milliliters of AgNO3 standard solution used for the titration in 72.5.1 of Method
I of ASTM D-2187.
A and Y = Milliliters of 0.1 N HCl required for the titration in 64.5.1 of Method I.
NC = Normality of the AgNO3 standard solutions used in 72.5.1.
NA = Normality of HCl solution used in 72.3.1 of Method I.
V = Wet volume of sample.
The weak base capacity (CW) is the difference between the total and salt splitting
capacities:
CW = CT - C5
Method C--Trace Metals Determination
Application
The concentrations of copper, iron, and sodium in ion exchange resins are determined.
Note: This procedure involves hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. It is

the responsibility of the user to establish appropriate safety and health practices.
Reference: ASTM Standards D-1068, D-1688 and D-4191.
Principle
The trace metal contaminants in ion exchange resins are quantified by ashing a known
weight of as-received resin dissolving the residue in acid and analyzing for specific
metals by atomic absorption or plasma emission spectrophotometry. Results are
reported in parts per million on a dry weight basis.
D-3
Resin Information
Reagents
Sulfuric Acid, concentrated spectrograde.
Hydrochloric Acid, concentrated spectrograde.
Hydrochloric Acid (1+1): Add one volume of concentrated HCl to one volume of
deionized water and mix thoroughly.
Potassium Chloride Crystals: Reagent grade.
Deionized water.
Sample Preparation
1. Weigh a 10 g sample of the as-received resin. Transfer sample to a clean 100 mL

platinum dish. Dry the sample on a hot plate until free flowing.
Note: Do not add sulfuric acid directly to the as-received sample without drying.
The H2SO4 will react with the water in the pores of the resin and upon heating, a
“popcorn” effect will occur resulting in loss of sample from the dish.
2. Moisten one sample with a few drops of concentrated sulfuric acid. Transfer the
platinum dish to a high temperature burner and carefully heat without spattering
until charring occurs.
3. Ignite the sample until it is free of carbon. If carbonaceous residue remains, moisten
the ash with several drops of concentrated sulfuric acid and repeat the process until
only a light colored residue remains.
4. Cool and dissolve the ash with 10 mL of 1+1 HCl, warming the solution if necessary,
to dissolve the ash.
5. Quantitatively transfer the solution to a 100 mL volumetric flask. Dilute to volume

with deionized water and mix well. This is solution “A.”
6. For Cu and Fe evaluation, pipet 20 mL of solution “A” into a 100 mL volumetric

flask. Dilute to volume with deionized water and mix well. Dilution factor is 500.
7. For Na evaluation, pipe 10 mL of solution “A” into a 100 mL volumetric flask. Add
0.05 g of KCl crystals to the flask. Dilute to volume with deionized water and mix
well. Dilution factor is 1000.
D-4
Resin Information
Reagent Blanks
Prepare reagent blanks in a similar manner, omitting the sample. Blanks should include
all the reagents used in the ashing and dilution steps.
Procedure
1. Determine the iron concentration in accordance with Method A of ASTM D-1068.
2. Determine the copper concentration in accordance with Method A of ASTM D-1688.
3. Determine the sodium concentration in accordance with ASTM D-4191.
Calculations:
(Test soln. conc. , mg / L - Blank) x Dil. Factor, mL

Metal, ppm (dry basis) = (eq. 32)
(Sample Weight, g) x Solids Fraction
Where solids fraction content is given by the reciprocal of the water retention capacity.
Method D--Cation Resin Organic Extractables
Application
The amount of water soluble organic extractables is determined for any ion exchange
cation resin.
Principle
A known volume of as-received cation resin is contacted with deionized water at

elevated temperature for 16 hours. The water is decanted off the resin and analyzed for
TOC. The weight of TOC per liter of resin is calculated from the results.
Procedure
1. Add 100 mL of sample resin to 250 mL glass bottle which has been cleaned for TOC
analysis.
2. Add ultrapure water to give a total volume of 200 mL.
3. Place in oven set for 60°C and maintain temperature for 16 hours.
D-5
Resin Information
4. Decant leach water off and measure water volume.
5. Analyze leach water for TOC.
Calculations
mg TOC (TOC in ppb) (leach water volume in mL)

= (eq. 33)
liter resin 100,000
Method E--Anion Resin Exchange Kinetics Assessment
Application
The kinetic performance of anion exchange resin is evaluated by a mixed bed test at
simulated plant operating conditions. Since resin exhaustion as well as fouling will
affect sulfate leakage, the anion resin hydroxide capacity is used in the mass transfer
coefficient calculation.
References
Harries, R. R., Electric Power Research Institute, Richmond, October 1985 and McNulty,
J. T., et al, Proc. International Water Conference, p. 335, October 1986.
Principle
The kinetic test is based on measuring sulfate leakage through a mixed bed test column
when a sulfate solution is injected into the mixed bed influent. A schematic of the test
apparatus is given on Figure D-1.
Procedure
1. Hydraulically separate approximately 200 mL each of cation and anion from the
mixed bed sample.
2. If the resins were not plant regenerated, regenerate the separated anion and cation
fractions at simulated plant regeneration conditions. However, resins from plants
that do not regenerate the resins should be tested as received.
3. Transfer 135 mL mixed resin to a 250 mL wide mouth bottle with the mixed cation to
anion volume ratio equal to that used in the plant polisher system.
D-6
Resin Information
4. Decant as much water as possible off the resin.
5. Mix resin by stirring and shaking in the bottle.
6. Scrape the resin out of the bottle into the 25 mm diameter test column. During the
filling process, use a squeeze bottle to rinse column walls and maintain column
water level 2 to 5 mm below the top of he resin.
7. Slowly fill the column with water after completing the resin transfer.
8. Prepare the contaminant injection solution containing sodium sulfate and the
amines used at the plant for pH control. The sodium sulfate and amine
concentrations, and injection flow rate should be adjusted to provide a column inlet
sulfate concentration of 600 ppb and a pH similar to plant condensate.
9. Circulate resin loop water through the test bed at 1.0 liters per minute to a test
column effluent conductivity of <0.1 µS/cm.
10. Start contaminant injection flow and continue until a constant conductivity is
observed at the column effluent (15 to 45 minutes).
11. Sample test column inlet and outlet solution for sulfate analyses.
12. Shut off contamination injection. Test column effluent conductivity reading should
return to the original value.
13. Perform resin bead size analyses on anion resin not used for the test.
D-7
Resin Information
Figure D-1 Kinetics Test Mixed Bed Test Column Arrangement
Calculations
1. The column parameters, resin bead diameters, and inlet and outlet sulfate
concentrations are used in the following equation to calculate the mass transfer
coefficient:
-FdIn(C / C0)
k= (eq. 34)
6LAR(1 - E)
D-8
Resin Information
where:
Co = Test bed inlet sulfate concentration, ppb
C = Test bed effluent sulfate concentration, ppb
k = Mass transfer coefficient, m/s
L = Bed depth, m
A = Test bed cross-sectional area, m2
R = Volume fraction hydroxide form an ion resin
 Hydroxide form anion resin volume, m 3 

  (eq. 35)
 Total bed volume, m 3 
E = Bed porosity, m3/m3 = 0.35
D = Anion resin harmonic mean particle diameter, m
F = Test bed flow rate, m3/s
2. The harmonic mean particle diameter (mm) is given by:
100
d ( HMS ) =
∑ x dp (eq. 36)
dp = d 1d 2
where d1 and d2 are the adjacent screen openings in the following table. The percent
of the total sample retained on each screen is entered in the x column/ The product
of (x) (I/dp) is calculated for the x/dp column. Then the sum of the x/dp values is
divided into 100 to give the HMS diameter:
D-9
Resin Information
US Opening, % Retained
Sieve mm (x) lid~ x/d~
12 1.68
14 1.41 0.650
16 1.19 0.772
18 1.00 0.917
20 0.84 1.091
25 0.71 1.295
30 0.59 1.545
35 0.50 1.841
40 0.42 2.182
45 0.354 2.593
50 0.297 3.084
60 0.250 3.670
70 0.210 4.364
80 0.177 5.187
100 0.149 6.158
200 0.074 9.523
325 0.044 17.52
D-10
Resin Information
Method F--Resin Cross-Contamination
Reference
Sadler, M. A., et al., Electric Power Research Institute, July 1986 (NP-4550).
Cation Resin in Bulk Anion Exchanger
Measure 200-250 mL (tapped settled volume) of anion exchanger in a measuring

cylinder and drain the resin free of water on a fine mesh sieve. Transfer the resin to a 1
liter separating flask (with stopcock), add 750 mL saturated sodium chloride solution,
shake the resin, and allow to stand with occasional gentle swirling. The cation resin will
separate out from the floating anion exchanger plus inert resin. The separated cation
resin can be removed through the stopcock. A second shaking can be applied to release
the last traces of cation resin from the floating resin, and this is also collected. The cation
resin is washed free from brine with deionized water and its settled volume measured
in either a graduated measuring cylinder or a graduated centrifuge tube.
The bulk anion resin/inert resin is recovered from the flask, washed, drained and then
added to 750 mL of 15% sodium hydroxide solution in a 1 liter separating flask.
Following shaking and standing, the inert resin will separate from the floating anion
exchanger. The inert can be removed through the stopcock and the anion exchanger
then recovered, washed, converted to the chloride form with sodium chloride solution
and rewashed. The trapped and settled volume of anion resin is then measured in a
measuring cylinder and the percentage cation in anion resin expressed on a settled
volume basis.
Anion Resin in Bulk Cation Resin
The cation resin is separated from the small volume of anion and inert resin with
saturated sodium chloride and the anion resin then separated from the inert resin using
15% sodium hydroxide solution. The separations can be carried out with 200-250 mL
resin sample in a 1 liter separating flask as before, but the first sodium chloride stage
produces a large volume of settled cation that may not be totally removed through the
stopcock before the anion exchanger/inert resin remixes with it. A second addition of
saturated sodium chloride may be necessary. Alternatively, the separation could take
place in an open 1 liter beaker and the floating anion/inert resins sucked or siphoned
from the surface.
After separation of the anion resin from inert resin with 15% sodium hydroxide (in a
smaller separating flask), the anion resin is converted to the chloride form, washed, and
its settled volume measured in a small graduated measuring cylinder or centrifuge
D-11
Resin Information
tube. The sodium form cation resin is also washed and its settled volume measured and
the percentage anion in cation resin calculated.
Method G--Determination of Chloride, Sulfate and Sodium Impurities Exchanged

on Bead Resin
Summary
A sample of anion exchange resin is eluted with nitric acid, and the chloride and sulfate
removed by the acid are determined.
Reference
ASTM Standard D-4327.
Procedure
1. Place 15 to 20 mL of wet swollen anion resin in a 25 mL graduated cylinder and

determine the tapped-settled volume.
2. Rinse the resin from the graduated cylinder into the elution column.
3. Pass deionized water down through the column until the resin is packed and
channeling has been eliminated. (NOTE: Do not allow liquid level to drain below the
top of the resin bed.)
4. Pass 80 mL of 1 N HNO3 through the column at a rate of 5 to 10 mL/min. Collect the

column effluent in a 100 mL volumetric flask.
5. Rinse acid out of column, remove resin from column and dispose of resin.
6. Dilute column effluent to 100 mL with deionized water.
7. Analyze sample column effluent for chloride and sulfate using ASTM Procedure D-
4327.
Calculations
Chloride or sulfate on the resin in meq/mL (C) is given by:
(Conc. in column effluent, eq / L) (100 mL)

C = (eq. 37)
(Volume of resin, mL)
D-12
Resin Information
Sodium Content of Cation Resin
Summary
A sample of cation exchange resin is eluted with nitric acid and the removed sodium,
calcium, and magnesium in the acid are determined by atomic absorption analysis.
Reference
Procedure
1. Place 15 to 20 mL wet swollen cation resin in a 25 mL graduated cylinder and

determine the tapped-settled volume.
2. Rinse the resin from the graduated cylinder into the elution column.
3. Pass deionized water down through the column until the resin is packed and
channeling has been eliminated. (NOTE: Do not allow liquid level to drain below the
top of the resin bed.)
4. Pass 80 mL of 2 N HNO3 through the column at the rate of 5 to 10 mL/min. Collect

the column effluent in a 100 mL volumetric flask.
5. Rinse acid out of column, remove resin from column and dispose of resin.
6. Dilute column effluent to 100 mL with deionized water.
7. Analyze the column effluent for sodium by flame AA (ASTM Procedure D-4327) or
plasma emission.
Calculations
Sodium on the resin in meq/mL (C) is given by:
(Conc. in column effluent, eq / L) (Volume of effluent, mL)

C = (eq. 38)
(Volume of resin, mL)
D-13
Resin Information
Method H--Hydrogen Form Cation Resin Exchange Capacity
Application
Hydrogen form, strong acid cation resin wet volume capacity determination.
Reference
ASTM Standard D-2187
Principle
The total capacity of a known resin wet volume is determined using ASTM procedures.
Procedure
1. Measure into separate 100 mL beakers three tapped and settled 10 mL sample
volumes of hydrogen for cation exchange resin.
2. Determine the milliequivalents of the cation exchange resin in accordance with

Method G of ASTM D-2187.
Calculations
Calculate the cation exchange capacity (CV) in milliequivalents per milliliter, as follows:
200NB - 4FNA
CV = (eq. 39)
V
where:
F = Milliliters of HCl required for titration in 55.2.2 of Method G of ASTM D-

2187
NA = Normality of HCl
NB = Normality of NaOH
V = Wet volume of sample
D-14
Resin Information
Report the total cation exchange wet volume capacity as the average of the three
samples.
Method I--Hydrogen Form Cation Resin Water Retention
Application
The determination of moisture-holding capacity of hydrogen form cation exchange

resin.
Reference
Principle
The water retention is determined from the weight lost by hydrated, dewatered resin
sample that is dried at elevated temperature.
Procedure
1. Soak approximately 10 grams of hydrogen form resin in deionized water for at least
30 minutes.
2. Dewater and store the resin in accordance with ASTM D-2187 Method A Paragraphs
10.12 and 10.13.
3. Determine water retention capacity in accordance with Method B of ASTM D-2187.
Method J--Water Leachable Impurities in Powdered Resin Fiber Filter Aid

Application
The determination of leachable impurities in powdered resin fiber filter aid material.
Principle
A known weight of fiber is contacted with deionized water at elevated temperature for
16 hours. The water is analyzed for impurities.
1. Weigh 50 gal. liquid of as-received mixture into a stoppered 250 mL vessel.
2. Add 200 mL of ultrapure water.
D-15
Resin Information
3. Heat for 16 hours at 60°C.
4. Filter water through a prerinsed 0.2 micron filter.
5. Analyze filtrate for specified anions by ion chromatography or equivalent method.
6. Measure TOC as specified by instrument manufacturer.
Calculations
ppm = 4 (Measured Impurity Concentration, ppm)
Resin Purchase Specifications
Type I strong base anion resins and strong acid cation resins should be used for both
bead and powdered resins. The resins should be styrene divinylbenzene copolymers
with trimethylamine functionalization for the anion and sulfonic acid for the cation
resin.
A resin supplier who provides quality products and services, and is staffed with
knowledgeable and capable people should be selected. The supplier must maintain
laboratory facilities staffed for quality assurance testing of new ion exchange resin. All
resin should be preshipment tested and certified that it conforms to the purchase
specification. All resin batches or lots should be resampled and tested by the purchaser.
Capacity, water retention, particle size, cation resin leachables, and other resin
impurities should be quantified by the purchaser as a minimum .
Table D-1
Sodium Hydroxide Regenerant Specifications
Constituent Weight Concentration
Sodium hydroxide as NaOH 49 - 52%
Sodium carbonate as Na2CO3 ≤200 ppm
≤10 ppm
a
Sodium chloride as NaCl
Sodium chlorate as NaClO3 ≤10 ppm
Sodium sulfate as Na2SO4 ≤10 ppm
Silica as SiO2 ≤5 ppm
D-16
Resin Information
Table D-1
Sodium Hydroxide Regenerant Specifications
Iron as Fe ≤5 ppm
Aluminum as Al ≤1 ppm
Appearance Colorless and clear
Suspended solids None
≤50 ppm is suitable for many applications.

a
Table D-2
Sulfuric Acid Regenerant Specifications
Sulfuric acid as H2SO4 ≤93%
Iron as Fe ≤50 ppm
Chloride as HCl ≤20 ppm
≤250 ppm
a
Sodium as Na
Appearance Colorless and clear
Suspended solids None
a
”High grade” sulfuric acid may be available with <20 ppm Na.
Bead Resin
Suggested bead resin specifications are given in Tables D-3 and D-4 along with example
test procedures for each specification. The 8% cross-linked cation resin specification is
given for potential use in throwaway beds such as in current BWR operation. For resins
that will be regenerated, the 10% cross-linked or macroporous cation resin is suggested
since the more dense resin allows better hydraulic separation from anion resin.
Measurement of anion resin mass transfer coefficient (~2 × 10-4 m/sec) also is useful to
D-17
Resin Information
assure the purchase of quality resin and for comparison to used resin values. Materials
that do not meet the resin specifications should be returned to the supplier.
Powdered Resin
Powdered resin is made from strong acid and strong base styrene divinylbenzene
polymer resin described above (gel type resins normally are specified). The resin is
ground to a fine granular form that is appropriate for combining into a slurry for
precoating the FD vessels. In some cases, a polyelectrolyte is added is added to modify
the characteristics prior to precoating.
Chemical specifications for the powdered resin individual components are given in
Table D-5. Premixed resins must be analyzed before preparation of the mixture.
Variations in equipment or operating conditions may impose different property
requirements in some cases. For example, for precoat cracking problems, a premixed
resin-cellulose fiber blend may be desirable. Low resin chloride and sodium impurities
should be required for PWR stations to minimize resin impurity throw. Sodium
concentration of 35 ppm is the best resin manufacturers can consistently supply at the
present time. However, recirculating steam generator PWR stations may need 25 ppm
sodium to reduce sodium throw. Neutral water chemistry at BWR stations reduces
resin impurity throw and low impurity level resins (e.g., 25 ppm sodium) are not as
critical.
Packaging Labeling, and Shipping. The following documentation and a certified

analysis showing that each lot or batch of resin meets the specifications should
accompany each resin shipment:
A. Vendor’s name.
B. Name of company that originally produced the resin.
C. Cation and anion designations and batch or lot numbers.
Table D-3
Cation Exchange Bead Resin
Gel Macroporous
Parameter 8% 10% 12% 20% Procedureb
Ion exchange capacity

Hydrogen form, meq/mL (min) 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.65 Method H
D-18
Resin Information
Table D-3
Cation Exchange Bead Resin
Gel Macroporous
Ionic form, equivalent %

Hydrogen (min) 99 99 99 99 ASTM D-2187
Sodium (max) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Method G
% water retention, Hydrogen form 50-55 45-50 51-57 50-57 Method I
Particle size, volume %c

>1190 µm (16) mesh), % (max) 2 2 2 5
<420 µm (40 mesh), % max 1 1 1 1
Mean size, µm 650±50 650±50 650±50 650±5
Perfect beads, % as received (min) 95 95 95 95 Method A
Trace metals, mg/dry kg of resin Method C

(max)
Iron 100 100 100 100
Copper 50 50 50 50
Organic extractables, mg TOC/liter 50 50 50 50 Method D

resin (max)
a
Percent divinylbenzene cross-linkage.
b
Suggested procedures are given as examples and do not exclude other methods of
analysis.
c
Applicable at plants that regenerate resin. When exhausted resins are discarded, a
screen size that minimizes resin separation may be selected.
Table D-4
Anion Exchange Bead Resin Specification
a
Parameter Gel Macroporous Procedure
Ion exchange capacity 1.0 0.9 Method B
Ionic form, equivalent % hydroxide 93 93 ASTM D-2187
Chloride 0.5 0.5 Method G
Sulfate 0.1 0.1 Method G
D-19
Resin Information
Table D-4
Anion Exchange Bead Resin Specification
a
Parameter Gel Macroporous Procedure
% water retention, Cl form 43-48 55-60 ASTM D-2187
Particle size, volume %b ASTM D-2187
>840 um (20 mesh), % (max) 2.0 2.0
<286 um (50 mesh), % (max) 0.2 0.2
Mean size, um 550±50 550±50
Perfect beads, % as-received (min) 95 95 Method A
Trace metals, mg/dry kg resin (max)

Sodium 100 100 Method C
Iron 100 100
Copper 50 50
a
analysis.
b
Applicable at plants that regenerate resin. If exhausted resins are to be discarded, a
screen size that minimizes resin separation may be selected.
Table D-5
Powdered Resin Individual Component Specificationsa
Resin Type
-
Parameter OH H+ NH4+
Form Form Form Fiber
Anion Cation Cation Material Procedureb
Total capacity, meq/g dry (min) 3.8 4.8 4.5 -- ASTM D-2187c
Moisture retention, % wt 55-60 53-60 45-57 -- ASTM D-2187c
Ionic form, eq %
Conversion (min) 95 99 95 --
D-20
Resin Information
Table D-5
Powdered Resin Individual Component Specificationsa
Resin Type
Chloride impurity (max) 0.25 -- -- --
Sulfate impurity (max) 0.50 -- -- --
Carbonate impurity (max) 5.0 -- -- --
Metal impurities, ppm dry wt Method C
Sodium (max) 35 35 35 50
Iron (max) 50 50 50 25
Copper (max) 10 10 10 10
Silica (max) 50 -- -- --
Leachable impurities, ppm dry wt Method J
Fluoride (max) -- -- -- 50
Chloride (max) -- -- -- 50
Sulfate (max) -- -- -- 50
Total organic carbon (max) -- -- -- 2000
Average particle size, micronsd 45-70 45-70 45-70 ASTM D-2187
a
Analysis of individual components of premixed resins before mixture is prepared
should meet these specifications.
b
analysis.
c
Analyze bead resin before grinding. Standard methodology for powdered resins
has not been published.
d
Particle size may be varied to achieve plant specific goals.
D. Name of company that modified original resin, such as conversion of ionic form,
special screening or grinding.
D-21
Resin Information
E. Number of packages or drums in each batch or lot.
F. The date of mixture preparation if shipment is mixed resins.
G. Resin analysis results.
Packages or drums should be numbered in the sequence of filling. Shipping containers

should be of sufficient durability to maintain their integrity during handling and up to 1
year of shelf life. The resin should be shipped in sealed plastic containers or sealed
plastic liners to prevent contamination of the resin and loss of moisture. The Seller is
responsible for resin freeze protection during shipment to the customer.
Each resin container of a shipment should be labeled with the following information:
A. Name of supplier.
B. Supplier’s product designation.
C. Batch or lot number.
D. Resin chemical form (hydrogen, hydroxide, ammonium, etc.)
E. Date the finished product was sampled and drummed.
F. Purchase order number.
G. Net contents of container in pounds and cubic feet.
The specification also should identify individuals and addresses to which copies of the
Certificate of Compliance and documentation are to be sent.
Customer Quality Assurance. The resins should be sampled for analysis by the power
station for verification that the materials meet the purchase specification All batches or
lots of resin should be sampled. Sampling of the first, middle and last package filled in
each batch or lot is recommended. Resin Verification analyses should be conducted
according to the plant’s resin analyses procedures or by an independent laboratory.
D-22
E
CONTRACTOR REGENERATION
Overview
Contractor regeneration involves the use of an offsite contractor to regenerate the resins
for a condensate polishing application. Such a system would transfer exhausted/dirty
resins to the contractor’s truck. The contractors used are those who are currently
providing mobile contract demineralization services, most often used to supply unit
makeup water during outages of station equipment. These contractors have many
different types of trucks which contain ion exchange vessels. In general, these
contractors bring these trucks to various locations and deionize water on service
contract basis. When the vessels are exhausted, the contractors haul the truck back to a
central location for regeneration. Both single bed exchange and mixed bed exchange
may be used by the contractor. Thus, because the contractor has the capability to
regenerate mixed bed resins, it is fairly simple for them to exchange mixed bed resins
with a condensate polishing system.
Process
The condensate polishing system used can either be contractor-owned or utility-owned.

If contractor-owned, it is generally one of the contractor’s standard offerings which are
skid-mounted and moved around to various sites by the contractor. Alternatively, the
service vessels could be custom fabricated for the application with a service contract
arranged to cover the costs of the custom fabrication. The selection of which option to
be used depends upon the physical limitation and the economics of the specific
application.
For contractor-owned, skid-mounted systems, the contractors merely pick up the skid
or transfer the resin to a truck. For more permanent installations, means to transfer the
resin to the contractor’s truck are necessary. Contractor costs are minimized if
transportation costs for resin transfer are minimized. This can be accomplished by
coordinating the system design with the contractor to minimize trips to the site and to
use the most efficient truck for transportation. Trailers generally can accommodate 500
to 600 cubic feet of resin and the onsite facilities should be designed to accommodate
this amount for each transfer. In other words, trips would be minimized by allowing for
exchange of a full truck load of resin for each trip. This can best be accomplished by
having the onsite polishing vessels sized to an even multiple of this capacity, say 250 to
300 cubic feet each.
E-1
ContractOR Regeneration
In order to accommodate transfer, a vessel with empty space of a resin charge is

necessary. This vessel can be a low-pressure vessel and can be designed to allow resin
transfer and cleaning. The capability to facilitate cleaning is also important if the resins
will have crud loading in excess of the ion exchange loading. Under this circumstance,
the resins could be cleaned several times before they would need replacement by the
service contractor.
Economic Evaluation
An economic evaluation of contractor regeneration, based upon similar systems to those

evaluated in Chapter 3 was performed. The evaluation was performed for both the new
unit case, Table E-1, and the retrofit unit case, Table E-2. These tables compare
contractor regeneration with the base cases for fully installed systems as described in
Chapter 3. As seen in Table E-1, capital costs for this system are significantly lower. Cost
savings are considerable for elimination of regeneration equipment as well as support
equipment for condensate polishing systems. Support equipment would include waste
disposal equipment such as neutralization and disposal systems. As shown, annual
operating costs are higher for the contractor regeneration for either the new unit or the
retrofit situation. Thus, the economics of the contractor regeneration system is
dependent upon the required regeneration frequency.
Table E-1
Comparison of Offsite Regeneration and the Base Case Regeneration System Installed
with a New Power Plant
Cost Base Case Regeneration Offsite Contractor

System Regeneration
Installed capital cost $2,923,000 $2,173,000
Fixed charges $440,000 $326,000
Levelized yearly operating costs $173,000 $389,000
Break-even regeneration frequency, 19 19

regenerations/year
E-2
Table E-2
Comparison of Offsite Regeneration and the Base Case Regeneration System Installed
as a Retrofit
Cost Base Case Regeneration Offsite Contractor

System Regeneration
Installed capital cost $3,774,000 $3,024,000
Fixed charges $566,000 $454,000
Levelized yearly operating costs $117,000 $240,000
Breaking-even generation frequency, 33 33

regenerations/year
The regeneration frequency used in this analysis for comparison was for ammonia cycle
operation. Because there are savings of capital costs by higher operating costs, the
economics of using of contractor regeneration will depend upon individual utility
economic factors. Less frequent regeneration rates would favor contractor regeneration,
whereas more frequent regeneration favors utility-owned equipment. The analysis
selected here shows contractor regeneration less favorable for both cases. However, as
regeneration frequency decreases, the fixed charges due to the higher capital costs
become more important. “Break-even” generation frequencies for both cases were
calculated and are shown on the table. These are the frequencies at which total costs are
equal. Note that the break-even frequency is very close to the base frequency for the
retrofit case. The amortization period for the retrofit case is shorter (20 years) and the
capital costs are higher for the retrofit case as compared to the new unit case, thus by
avoiding the capital expenditure, is more economically effective in the retrofit case.
Other situations favorable to contractor regeneration are for use during initial plant
commissioning, atypical cogeneration operations, or infrequent unit restarts.
In some instances, liquid waste disposal may be a problem for the utility. Thus, it may
be more convenient and cost-effective to have the contractor haul off the exhausted
resin for regeneration elsewhere (and thus be responsible for disposal of regeneration
wastes). This may allow the utility to avoid additional capital expenditure (such as
wastewater treatment equipment of facilities) or to be able to minimize operating costs
(such as wastewater disposal costs). These avoided costs would have to be evaluated
against the cost of the contractor regeneration to determine the economics of contractor
regeneration for each individual situation.
E-3
Disadvantages
As noted above, frequent regeneration is costly with the contractor regeneration system.
Even fairly low regeneration frequencies associated with operation beyond ammonia
break do not justify the higher regeneration costs. Events such as condenser leakage,
poor quality makeup, and high air in--leakage would greatly increase regeneration
frequencies. Thus, contractor regeneration would be costly when used to cope with
upsets. Since the ability to cope with upsets is one of the major advantages of
condensate polishing, contractor regeneration may prove to have false economy.
As discussed earlier in this guideline, operation beyond ammonia break requires a high
level of surveillance and quality control. Experience is limited with contractor
regeneration; thus, assurance that the contractor will always provide resin of adequate
quality is not available. Because the primary business is makeup treatment, some
vendors may not need or have the extensive quality control measures in place to allow
satisfactory operation beyond ammonia break.
The economics of contractor regeneration is subject to a great number of variables.

Transportation costs are a significant portion of the operating costs. If a potential user is
located relatively close to a contractor, regeneration costs can be significantly reduced.
Additionally, longer term contracts on a utility-wide basis can allow a contractor to
significantly reduce his charges for regeneration. The potential user will need to
evaluate both the economic and quality control factors for the user’s specific situation.
E-4
ABOUT EPRI
Electricity is increasingly recognized as a key to societal progress throughout the world, dri-
ving economic prosperity and improving the quality of life. The Electric Power Research
Institute delivers the science and technology to make the generation, delivery, and use of
electricity affordable, efficient, and environmentally sound.
Created by the nation’s electric utilities in 1973, EPRI is one of America’s oldest and largest
research consortia, with some 700 members and an annual budget of about $500 million.
Linked to a global network of technical specialists, EPRI scientists and engineers develop
innovative solutions to the world’s toughest energy problems while expanding opportunities
for a dynamic industry.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS
(continued from front cover)

4. TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated. You may terminate them at any time by
destroying this report. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you
fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you may destroy this
report, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES LICENSED
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON
BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: M AT E R I A L
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT
TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED
IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT
SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY
PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this report,
and you agree not to export or re-export this report or any related technical data in any form without the
appropriate United States and foreign government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place
entirely in California between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive
agreement between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related under-
standing or agreement. No waiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against
EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
E
Printed on recycled paper (50% recycled fiber, including
10% postconsumer waste) in the United States of America.

Condensate Polishing Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Condensate Polishing Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

E

Condensate Polishing Guidelines

SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Final Report, June 1996

EPRI Project Manager

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT

Al Aschoff Malcom Ball

Greg Bartley Jim Bellows

Albert Bursik Frances Cutler

Phil Daniel Larry Dupree

Dan Everson Tom Gilchrist

Don Goldstrom Doug Hubbard

Bud Herre Ronnie Jones

Otkar Jonas Ronnie Pate

Jim Mathews Kevin Shields

Rob Peterson Terry Spaulding

Jim Rice Steve Shulder

Dave Stamp George Verib

Purpose and Scope

How To Use These Guidelines

The contents of each chapter are briefly described below.

Chapter 1--Principles of Condensate Polishing

Chapter 2--Water Chemistry Impacts

Chapter 3--Justification of Condensate Polishing

Chapter 4--Condensate Polisher Guidelines

This chapter provides the compilation of guidance on design, operation, maintenance,

Appendix A--Condensate Polishing Experience Summary

Appendix B--European Practices

Appendix C--Economic Factors

Appendix D--Resin Information

Appendix E--Contractor Regeneration

This appendix provides some insight to application of offsite, Contractor regeneration

1 PRINCIPLES OF CONDENSATE POLISHING ........................................................ 1-1

High Efficiency Separation Plants ....................................................................... 1-51

2 WATER CHEMISTRY IMPACTS .............................................................................. 2-1

3 JUSTIFICATION OF CONDENSATE POLISHING .................................................. 3-1

Power Plant Features............................................................................................ 3-9

4 CONDENSATE POLISHER GUIDELINES ............................................................... 4-1

Precoat Systems ................................................................................................. 4-17

A CONDENSATE POLISHING EXPERIENCE........................................................... A-1

B EUROPEAN PRACTICES....................................................................................... B-1

C ECONOMIC FACTORS........................................................................................... C-1

D RESIN INFORMATION ........................................................................................... D-1

Procedure ............................................................................................................ D-5

Principle ............................................................................................................. D-15

Table 1-1 Data Relating To US Standard Screen Scale....................................................... 1-6

Table 1-3 Ion Exchange Resin Capacities........................................................................... 1-16

Table 2-1 Cycle Chemistry Limits......................................................................................... 2-3

Table 2-2 Once-Through Unit Cycle Chemistry Limits..................................................... 2-4

Table 2-3 Maximum Allowable Impurity Level in Recirculating Steam Generator

Table 2-6 Condensate Polisher Effluent Limitations--Comparison Tables................... 2-14

Table 3-7 Cost of a Powdered Resin Condensate Polishing System Installed as a

Table 3-15 Major Fixed Assumptions................................................................................. 3-24

Table 4-1 Ion Exchange Resin Regeneration ..................................................................... 4-28

Table 4-2 Typical Powdered Resin Precoat Materialsa .................................................... 4-32

Table 4-3 Demineralizer Mixed Bed Resin Ratio Guidelinesa......................................... 4-35

Figure 1-1 Typical Mixed Bed Condensate Polishing System........................................... 1-2

Figure 1-2 Typical Powdered Resin Polishing System ....................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-16 Adverse Effects of Fluidizing Resin ............................................................... 1-30

Figure 1-17 Condensate Polisher Recycle........................................................................... 1-32

Figure 1-18 Ultrasonic Resin Cleaner (Source: Reference 27).......................................... 1-36

Figure 1-19 Example of Condensate Polisher Resin Bed Expansion as a Function of

Figure 1-20 Condensate Polisher Operating Time to Amine Breakthrough (Source: