1999 Operating Seminar

Jim Willa, Willa, Inc. – Welcome to the 1999 Operating Seminar. We here to answer question for you the
best we can, but that is just the first effort. The major effort comes from those of you who ask questions
and tell your experience. If you weren’t able to get in a written question, don’t worry you can use any of
the microphones to get your question presented.

I would like to introduce the Operating Seminar Committee. I’m Jim Willa the chairman. We have Tom
Laronge with Thomas M. Laronge, Inc., past President of CTI, now serving as CTI Journal Chair. Tom has
32 years in water treating. We also have Jim Baker, 15 years as a user of cooling towers. Jim has been on
the CTI Board of Directors, past Chair of the Performance & Technology Committee and is currently Chair
of the Education Committee. He has worked 15 years with a major producer and 5 years with a cooling
tower manufacturer company. Jim will introduce the rest of the committee.

One other thing I would like to mention is that this entire committee, with the Y2K problem in mind, has
switched from our current computer to the newest and best model. Both of which guarantee Y2K
compliant. So we’re in.

Jim Baker, Marley Cooling Tower Company – Before introducing the rest of the panel I want to remind
you of the green and yellow sheets in front of you. The green sheet is an evaluation form for the technical
papers and panel discussion today. The yellow one is the evaluation form for the Operating Seminar.
Please take time to fill those out, that is the input we work from to improve future meetings.

The remaining panel members are Don Johnson, Research Fellow with Nalco Chemical with 25 years of
experience in the industry. Don has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Iowa State. He is an inductee in
the National Corporate Inventures Hall of Fame, a member of NACE, Chairman of NACE T7A-21 and a
member of CTI.

Next is Ken Mortensen of Marley Cooling Tower Company. Ken is a chemical engineer. Graduated in
1977 from MIT. He has been with Marley for 20 years and is company Manager of Materials Engineering.
He has presented two papers, one on film fill fouling and the other on tower flamability and FM Approval
for CTI. He is also a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Kansas.

We also have Dave Stackhouse. Dave has a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of California at Berkley. He has more than 20 years of experience in cooling tower engineering
with emphasis on performance prediction and testing. He is presently Vice President of GEA Integrated
Cooling Technologies.

Our last panel member to be introduced is Mike Whittemore. Mike is the Vice President of the Water
Technology Group at Brentwood Industries. Mike brings 20 years of experience to the panel. He has a
degree in Environmental Science and has been a member of CTI for approximately 14 years. He has
served as a committee member on the Performance & Technology Committee and the Engineering
Standards and Maintenance Committee. Mike has published numerous papers on the subjects of film
fouling, drift eliminator performance and PVC material.

That completes our panel. As Jim mentioned these gentlemen are here to answer questions you have
submitted. They are definitely not all the expertise represented in this room. We have plenty of people in
the audience who are qualified to answer any of the questions. The way the Operating Seminar works is
that the questions placed in the box at the registration desk will be fielded first. Tom Laronge will handle
the Water Treating questions. Jim Willa will handle the cooling tower related questions. The panel
members will attempt to answer them first with participation from the audience after that. The discussion
of each question will be limited to provide time for all questions to be answered. After the written
questions are answered then we will open the floor to any other questions there may be.

Tom Laronge, Thomas M. Laronge, Inc. – Does anyone have any ideas, suggestions, or requests to be
considered for the CTI Journal? What I would like to do is to make sure that every one in the CTI has an

1
equal opportunity to suggest improvements in the Journal or to suggest ideas for different content of the
Journal because two heads are always better than one. We want to keep up with what’s going in the world
and make sure that we are doing a good job. If you look at the CTI Journal and other Journal’s that you
receive you’ll see that most of the other journals are going down in quality. The printing quality, in
particular, is getting cheaper, the paper they are using is getting cheaper making it hard to read. The CTI
Journal is getting better and we would like to keep it that way. So if you have some suggestions, or ideas
we would really appreciate having them.

Tony Ballaigues, Cooling Tower Maintenance, Inc. – The objective of installing hot water basin covers is
to eliminate the sunlight and subsequent algae growth. What is the most cost-effective method of doing
this considering wind and snow load as well as access and durability?

Dave Stackhouse, GEA Integrated Cooling Technologies – There are a number of ways to cover a hot
water basin. You are correct, the idea is to prevent sunlight from contributing to algae growth. It can be
done in several ways. We need to say that we are speaking about crossflow cooling towers; they have hot
water basins where as counterflows don’t. On crossflow towers one of the best ways is to build a covered
structure over the basin sloped from the fan deck to the side. The cover should have sufficient height at
the hand rail on the fan deck so there will be easy access to the area for cleaning without having to lift up
panels and mess around with fasteners, etc. That is one way to doing it. You do have to be careful that
wind loads must be taken into account as well as snow loads similar things. Just like any other part of the
structure it has to be properly designed for the intended service.

Baker – One other point is that whether the basin covers are attached or just a covering, do not limit the
cleaning of the basin which can occur when something is bolted down tight.

Sid Udall, Tucson Electric Power – We had plywood covers on our original decks and we have had a lot of
delaminating problems. You might want to consider solid redwood.

Tom Hamilton, Consultant – Has anybody run any kind of analysis in recent times and whether it was cost
effective or not. I can remember many years ago that Charlie Shaffer of Shell Chemical would always
cover his basin. He could justify it on cost savings and chemicals in so far as water treatment was
concerned.

Willa – If you have an industrial crossflow towers where there is 5 to 6 feet between fan deck and
distribution deck the best thing to do is to extend the fan deck. Then there will be headroom so you’ll still
be able to check the nozzles and clean them. The only difficulty is that under today’s safety rules that
generally becomes a confined space area. Then a confined space permit will have to be obtained. I saw a
tower in the last month where black plastic right was placed on top of the basins. When the plastic got hot
it expanded, then laid down and covered up all the nozzles. Be careful that what you do is a help and not a
harm.

Laronge – Tom in answer to your question, I don’t think I have ever seen an economic study. I have seen
areas where if a basin is covered the demand for biocide goes way down, particularly an oxidizing biocide
or you are using gaseous chlorine and there is a certain amount of volatility across the cooling tower. So I
see a consumption factor go down. I don’t think anybody is ever worried about the difference in
maintenance and the difference in solids inventory and everything else that are claimed to be the benefits of
the tower.

Ken Mortensen, Marley Cooling Tower Company – On the cover issue relating to durability of course the
wet dry issue contributes substantially to the delamination on the plywood. I would think that fiberglass
would be a good choice, like with pluming materials in wet/dry applications for towers.

Ballaigues – What pre-fabricated fiberglass (FRP) products are available that can be used in lieu of
plywood or tongue and groove lumber, specifically for hot water basins?

2
Mortensen – There are FRP basin floor deck panels becoming available. I’m going to have to defer a little
on commercial availability of that right at this moment and time. I think that is something that is going to
be coming in the near future.

Willa – The same panels that we are recommending now, even on wood towers, to replace fan deck are
fiberglass panels. These same panels, I’m sure, can be adapted to the distribution deck which doesn’t have
to take any more than the 60 lb. per square foot load that the fan deck takes.

Mark Christian, Strongwell – There are a number of existing panels today that are also existing standard
materials. There are also custom materials that are being made for that particular application. So there are
a number of materials today that can be bought either off the shelf or custom designed for what you are
talking about.

Baker – When you are saying off the shelf, are you talking about all major tower manufacturers or from the
suppliers?

Christian – The fiberglass manufacturers have a number of different standard items. There are also some
custom items that have been designed for cooling tower manufacturers.

Willa – Mark how about the ribs in the panels, are they located such that nozzles can be placed on 1 foot
centers where all is intersecting with the rib?

Christian – There are some panels like that. There are custom panels that are designed to meet those
criteria. You would need to check with either the fiberglass manufacturer or the manufacturer of the
cooling tower to see how their panels designed to meet the necessary criteria.

Gary Geiger, BetzDearborn Inc. – This question is directed to Don Johnson. On December 8, 1987,
United States Patent 4,711,724 was issued to you, titled “Method for the Prevention of Phosphonate
Decomposition by Chlorine. In that patent it was stated, and I quote, “However, under less controlled
environments found in a typical plant cooling circuit, excessive chlorine levels are frequently observed.
Under these conditions, HEDP or other phosphonates can breakdown to a sufficient degree to cause
problems.” Yesterday you commented that the phosphonate PBTC is stable in the presence of chlorine. In
light of the fact that PBTC is not a new development and has been around for over 17 years, how do you
reconcile the statement in your patent with the comment you made yesterday?

Don Johnson, Nalco Chemical Company – I suppose I could say I have no recollection of that statement.
I don’t think I will. I think what Gary is referring to is the question that I asked yesterday in response to
one of the papers where I took exception to the statement that phosphonates are degraded by chlorine and
bromine. Gary, quiet rightly pointed out some similar language that I used in a patent that was written 10
or so years ago. We should be precise in our language on this. It is my position, based on all the data that
is published and all the data that I have, you can safely make the statement that some phosphonates are
degraded by halogens. You cannot safely and truthfully say that “all” phosphonates are degraded by
halogens. There are 4 different chemical classes of phosphonates currently being used in the water
treatment industry and it has to do with their bonding structures. Without getting too much into the
chemistry, suffice to say that ATDP is well known to be chlorine sensitive as this patent that Gary is
referring to states. At that time the patent was written, we were making a study of chlorine sensitivity and
we were investigating the classes of phosphonates as well as the impact of some of the stabilizing agents
that are used with halogens. We discovered that you could reduce decomposition of HEDP by using the
stabilizers. At the same time we also discovered, and for that reason we did not include it in that patent,
that PBDC is in fact for all intents and purposes completely resistant to halogens. As I say, based upon all
the data that I am aware of that has been published and in the 20 or so years of experience in using the
product I am not aware of anything that will contradict that statement.

Italo Liberatore, Baltimore Gas & Electric Company – Is there a more practical way to adjust fan blade
pitch to accommodate winter/summer operation? The corroded conditions of the hardware makes this task
very undesirable for the plant technicians.

3
Willa – We have had this in quiet a few places. Iowa Electric at their new plant at pay low(?) used to
change fan pitch twice a year. They continued to wear out bolts, clamps, and so forth in addition to the
labor involved. We finally convinced them with sufficient data that you should set motor amperage near
name plate motor rating during the summer when you need it, then leave it. When winter comes, the
density of air is higher and takes more horsepower there are two mitigating factors that are going on. You
are not moving outside air; you are moving hot air. So the difference in density is not as great as you think
it would be going across the fan so that you will raise horsepower. If you raise a few horsepower above
nameplate with a 1.1 or 1.15 service factor it doesn’t matter. Even at 1.0 serevice factor any damage that
would be done to the motor would be from overheating. If you have temperatures below freezing outside
with a TEFC motor it would be very unlikely that you would overheat it. The bottom line is set it for
summer performance and forget it.

Baker – Does anyone else want to comment on changing the pitch on your blades from summer to winter
to accommodate the peaks and amperage because of the denser air?

Dave Veil, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. – What were once considered routine maintenance for cooling
towers such as inspecting internals, changing fan pitch or checking gearboxes are now confined space entry
issues. This greatly complicates the need to plan and also increases the cost of doing routine maintenance.
If you did have a policy of changing fan pitches twice a year, I would agree with Jim, you need to come up
with a common ground where fan pitch could be set and leave it there.

Baker – One additional comment, I would also recommend the use of a more non-corrosive hardware on
the fan assembly. For instance, using galvanized in some situations may be a problem.

Hamilton – A problem that you sometimes get into if you have overload heaters and the overload heaters
are installed in a heated room they will trip. Overload heaters are also temperature sensitive. If they are in
a cold environment they won’t trip.

George Hanks, Nalco Chemical Company – What specification for steam pH/CO2 content do you propose
for the carbon steel tubes to prevent corrosion and iron pick up in the condensate? (Question refers to
TP99-08)

Laronge – Realistically you can’t specify less than 5 ppm as free CO2. Mechanical considerations limit
CO2 removal down to 5 ppm. It would be very hard to go below that level. Obviously the higher the
purity of the water the more important those few parts per million of CO2 are. To give you a good answer
on the rest of the question, I would need to know a little bit more about the purity of the condensate and
more details about the specific system. In general, I would recommend a pH of 8.5 minimum on carbon
steel. Also, I would tell you if you had mixed metallurgy where there was a lot of copper in the system, as
in commercial evaporative condensers, you might would want to go up to a pH of 9.2 but not over.

Wayne Cole, A/C Power – What is the benefit of FRP over perforated, pressure treated Douglas fir?

Mortensen – I would guess the questioner means by perforated, insizing. There is some debate as to
whether that is helpful or not in terms of longevity of wood. There is certainly some associated strength
reduction in terms of those perforations depending on the pattern used. Over time in a wood structure, you
are going to have to inspect and understand that all structural numbers internals are solid and are doing
what they are suppose to be doing. The intent with fiberglass would be to eliminate some of the individual
piece inspection and replacement work that occurs over time. There certainly are some package tower
designs that have been in use for 15-years or so that are holding up well. While some might argue that the
jury is out on the true longevity of FRP, I think there is a good track record to go on in terms of how long
that material is going to last.

Jim Kanuth, ChemTreat, Inc. – Reaching back into a past life as it were, I spent ten years as Senior Utility
Engineer in an ethylene plant where we had three cooling towers. There were two redwood, and one
incised pressure treated Douglas fir. In those ten years we probably replaced 20-25 boards in the redwood

4
towers. In the Douglas fir tower we replaced 30% of the lumber over the same time period. In that ten
years we missed annual spray treatment for fungus only once. I don’t know enough about fiberglass to say
what the longevity is like some of you folks that are involved in tower construction but it has to be better
than Douglas fir.

Baker – Would someone like to comment on the incising issue?

Dick DesJardins, DesJardins & Associates – Just to answer the question concerning the incising issue, it
really increases the depth of penetration to some degree. It doesn’t give it over the full area since there are
gaps between incisions. Does it significantly extend the life? Testing indicated that it did but whether it
was enough or not I don’t know. If fiberglass is used you won’t end up 10-15 years from now trying to
dispose of an incised or treated piece of wood that has to go a Class I dump. This has become quiet a
problem in some projects where the old towers are being torn down and the wood has to be taken to a
particular place for disposal and you remain responsible for the wood forever. A company might be stuck
with maintaining whereever it was dumped and any liability that goes with it. This can significantly add to
the cost of replacing and repairing the tower.

Larry Brown, Midwest Towers, Inc. – We are involved in a project right now that the wood is coming to us
incised. As far as the WCLIB, and this was an issue when we rewrote the code a few years ago on the
wood treating, the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau, for Douglas fir to be stamped and approved by
them, requires it to be incised. We, as an institute, decided to not agree with the WCLIB. Incising is not a
requirement, it is an option. As far as the treating results with incising, treatment does have better
penetration. The difference seen is that there are a lot of different patterns, different blade count, those
things are yet to be discerned, as to whether or not you go with air dry or seasoned lumber and the type of
treatment that you use. Let me comment on the issue that Dick brought up with the disposal of treated
wood. If you go to your local Home Depot or some other store, 95% of the wood you’ll see in there is
treated with the most common treatment that you see in cooling towers today and that is a CCA. There are
other treatments being used in this industry, but the majority is CCA. As far as disposal, that is not an issue
at this moment in time. Some of the problems with older of towers that required disposal concerned the
chemicals used in the treatment that impregnated the wood during the operation of the life of the tower that
had to go to a Class I dump.

Bill Howard, Psychrometric Systems, Inc. – As end users, another requirement when lumber is treated is
to check the moisture content or make sure that the manufacturer is using the correct moisture content. If
moisture content is already 30% or higher which is particular to the Douglas fir species, when attempting to
inject a water born treatment into a board that already has a 30% moisture content there already is a lot of
water in the wood. You are attempting to push more water born preservative into this piece and it just
won’t take anymore. If the water content is in the 19-24% as required by the CTI, there will be a much
better treating result. Also there is a strength loss with incising under debate right now. If you get lumber
that is incised there is a specific strength reduction that will occur, somewhere around 10-15%. The
specific percentage may be debatable, but there is a strength reduction and most of your stress is associated
with that incising.

Brown – I forgot to add one issue. Thanks to Jim I have been nominated to come up with a CTI Standard
on Treating Reports. I would welcome anybody here and anybody you know to get a hold of me so I can
determine the type of reports being provided. We do need a standard. We now have within the CTI a good
treating specification. It is enforceable. The results you are getting from different treaters around the
country needs follow up so that we have a standard report which can be used and we can have more results
that we can all universally see if we are exactly complying with the specification.

Mike Trulear, ChemTreat, Inc. – A few years ago a paper was presented at CTI, which showed that
tolyltriazole, could be degraded by microorganisms. Can you comment on the biodegradability and
environmental fate of the new halogen resistant azole? (Paper directed to the author of TP99-01)

Dave Ritz, BetzDearborn Inc. – From an environmental stand point the new azole, like TTA, can be
degraded in a waste treatment plant through aerobic digestion. The thing that we have found from an

5
environmental standpoint is when you compare the azoles ppm for ppm there are some issues with the way
the new HRA halogen resistant azole is reacted and made. With the reduced use level with the new azole,
and the reduced level of halogen fed because there is no longer an extra demand for halogen from TTA or
the other azoles, you have a reduced copper levels resulting from lower copper corrosion. The biggest
issue for this material being approved by the EPA was the reduction in the total package environmentally.
It can be degraded in a waste treatment plant and overall environmentally there is a bigger benefit in using
this material than TTA.

Roy Manley, BetzDearborn Inc. – Under the Texas regimen, they have a question, “…is something of
persistent biochemo to toxicant or chemical…” Under that rule this would not be considered persistent of
biochem to depth’s degree much with the other azoles. I might also comment that when ordinary TTA is
used in a system with chlorination there will be a variety of chlorinated azoles, of which there is less
knowledge. With the HRA at least we have submitted it for a variety of test including aquatic toxicity,
persistence, and degradability in a waste treatment plant giving us a battery of information available on the
HRA.

Ritz – One other point, if anybody has been around a cooling tower where chlorine gas or bleach is fed
along with TTA one thing you’ll notice during chlorination is the characteristic caramel odor. This has
been a major problem in applications where there are neighborhoods nearby. The HRA has eliminated that
problem. There is no more odor and air problem that comes with the TTA, chlorine compound that is
formed. That is another benefit.

Don Bucci, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. – What is the proper method of specifying flammability
ratings for towers (i.e. flame spread less than xx, self extinguishing etc.)?

Mike Whittemore, Brentwood Industries, Inc. – I’ll respond to the components part, as a fill and drift
eliminator manufacturer. Two of the tests that we conduct to meet flamability requirements are an ASTM
Test E-84 which is a tunnel test, most commonly specifications of 25 or less are what we see to meet
although you can meet lower values than that as low as 5 or 10. We also participate in Factory Mutual
tests, which are tower tests. The fill and drift eliminators would be an important component in the towers
and contributing to that. It does not receive independent approval as a component but as a component in
the system receives approval.

Mortensen – On flame spread, just for some general education, it is a non-uknitted rating from zero to 100
where 100 is red oak. As a comparison, 25 or fewer categories considered basically self-extinguishing or I
considered them roughly equivalent although I have never found a definition of self-extinguishing in the
literature. That is a material property, say of property of PVC, a property of the fiberglass mix as opposed
to a property of the assembly configuration, which is really more accurately reflected in full scope testing
of the kind that Factory Mutual does and may some other agencies do. They would tell you that a material
rating doesn’t tell you that much if you don’t know what configuration it’s used in in terms of flammability.
So there are two components to that type of rating for a tower.

Howard – Has there been any studies on TEK screws damaging the FRP members by tearing out the
backside and allowing wicking and water absorption to occur?

Jess Seawell, Ceramic Cooling Tower Company – How TEK screws actually draw a hole so you are
drilling through the material so it doesn’t tear out so much on the back. In the system that we use we also
add epoxy to the system which causes epoxy to be added to the screw as it goes through. So in some of the
test that we have performed we actually see that the back is coated.

Howard – National Design Standards (NDS) for wood construction has specific design related information
with respect to wood engineering. FRP presently must rely on manufacturer's information with respect to
design, safety factors, deflection limits, etc. How do we, CTI as an industry, ensure each manufacturer uses
sound engineering in their fiberglass design?

6
Mortensen – Engineering Standards & Maintenance has a sub-committee under Mark Christian that is
working to draft a standard. There was a debate today about a guideline versus a standard. It appears a
standard will be necessary with the best information we can muster from the people who put together the
towers, the people who make the protruded materials and the experience that we have from those designs
being in the field. Five to seven years, I would say for industrial towers. Fifteen years in terms of package
towers. I think you will see something coming along shortly that would define more specifically what’s
known today about those design standards.

Howard – Again, not knowing that information before, I was under the assumption we were still trying to
keep it as a guideline. Knowing now that we are going to create a standard that we as manufacturers must
conform to made a lot more sense.

Baker – Mark would you like to comment on the work you are about to do or did Ken sum it up?

Christian – I think Ken did a real good job of telling you where we are going. What we are doing is a long
term guideline not only on the design of a fiberglass cooling tower but also fabrication practices, ultraviolet
chemical resistance exposure, materials that are manufactured. We have a lot of participation. We want to
encourage anyone that wants to come out and understand how we do it or get a copy of what we are doing
see either me, Ken, or Jim. We would be happy to get that information to you. It is something that we are
having a tremendous amount of questions on. We hope to get a standard or at least a first pass at a standard
in the next few months.

Baker – There is a continued interest for fiberglass components in the cooling tower industry. I think that
Engineering Standard & Maintenance did a fine job of heading in that direction and putting some people on
that that will come up with some good answers and guidelines that not only the manufacturers, but the
suppliers and users can put to use.

Kevin Emery, BetzDearborn Inc. – What is the most effective method for preventing cottonwood and other
airborne fibers from contaminating towers?

Willa – This last year in Blytheville, Arkansas on a cooling tower that is only a few hundred yards from an
area on the Mississippi River lined with cottonwood trees, there was difficulty with splash fill, not to
mention film fill. They built a framework out from the louvers, going from the top of the louvers out ten
feet then down to the ground. The framework was then covered with regular plastic screen wire like you
would put on a house window. They go inside the enclosure once a week with a hose and wash the
cottonwood off the screen from the inside. That is pretty labor intensive, but it does do a good job of
keeping the cottonwood out of the cooling tower.

Baker – We need some more comments this. This came from a water treating person and I think they may
be seeking a water treatment answer. Maybe there is not a chemical answer. I will make comment
concerning some of the things done in the past or screens put up on the louver face to keep out airborne
materials such as cottonwood. It does tend to have an ill effect on the airflow sometimes. So that is
something that needs to be watched.

Laronge – I think there are two issues here. One is whether we are talking about fibers coming in with the
water, or fibers that are airborne. If you split those, there are some things that can be done with water
intrusion and it is just as much of a problem, things like adjusting your intake structure, using rake
collectors for example or screens around intake. Make sure your intake structure isn’t on the top or bottom
of the vessel that you are using to collect your water. Make sure that the intake structure is pointed toward
the bottom about midway up or a third of the way up from the bottom. Those things tend to help keep
cottonwood fibers out. Really, when you see them they are a big problem. If they get to be big enough
you’ll want to move the trees. If that doesn’t work you might want to take the water out of your system
because that will stop the problem.

7
Hamilton – Before any screening is placed on an intake louvers pressure drop calculations should be made
to make certain the screen is not seriously effecting airflow. My recollection is that if you get much
smaller than a half-inch mesh then you are going to start hurting yourself.

Italo Liberatore, Baltimore Gas & Electric – Since we have replaced our fill we have experienced
“excessive” drift. Is there a practical way to measure drift? What can be done to minimize it?

Whittemore – He didn’t say what type of cooling tower it was?

Baker – No, he doesn’t say what type of cooling tower. He just said he put in new fill and it started
drifting. There are a lot of things that can cause that, the type of cooling tower being one possibly.

Whittemore – If you have had a repair done, assuming a splash fill job and created more splash, and the fill
is brought closer to the drift eliminators causing the eliminators to flood which prevents them from draining
properly, this will cause an increase in the drift.

Baker – There are a lot of other things to consider when fill installed in a tower that can cause it to drift.
We look at the operation, whether they have new fill or not. Many times basins can be dirty or the tower
can be over recirculated. If you are over pumping and have water running off the louver facing outside the
tower, you are probably running water from the inboard side into the plenum area on a cross flow as well.
That’s not drift that is just water that is being poured in a plenum area and sucked out the top. That can
appear as drift after a fill job. Maybe the drift eliminators were not replaced properly. It can result from a
mixture of perpendicular and parallel fills mixed together which causes excessive air movement across one
portion of the tower. There are many things that can come into play.

Stackhouse – As to the part of the question concerning drift measurement, as a P&T rep, I would like to
comment that there are ways to measure drift. CTI has a test code that covers drift measurement and there
are CTI test agencies available to do the job. However, I would suggest that you follow along the lines
mentioned by Jim and the others. There is some sort of a problem here and you would be better served to
look for the problem than to look for a way to measure the amount of drift. The drift testing process is
rather laborious and expensive. It would probably be better to look for a problem than to focus on a test
method.

Baker – I agree with Dave. There is probably some outside problem causing the drift. Let’s say it isn't an
outside problem and that there is a lot of drift in the tower. Don’t stop here. Let’s answer the man’s
question. Is there any practical way to measure drift? Some you testing agencies out there can answer this.

Willa – There is a CTI standard on measurement of drift but it is difficult, even more difficult than the
performance test measurement. Consequently the cost of it is considerably higher than a performance test.
I think the companies doing drift test did only 2 or 3 last year. One thing to keep in mind about drift is to
use a proper term. Drift is involuntary blowdown. Every gallon that goes out the top is a gallon that you
don’t have to pull out the bottom. When I was giving a seminar in Nevada at a power plant, I told them if it
comes out in the middle of the desert no one would mind. If it hits the switch gear and starts to coat with
scale and you start shorting out switch gear that is a problem. If it hits the parking lot it is a serious
problem. If it hits the parking lot and gets on the plant managers Cadillac it’s intolerable.

Gary Mirsky, Hamon Cooling Towers – I really didn’t hear the whole question, but I think the gist of it is,
is there a practical way to measure drift. We rarely see drift tested. The state of California seems to test for
drift routinely on fresh water cooling towers. I can try to answer the question by quoting the cost. We
tested a tower to .0015% and we failed the test and the cost of the first run was about $28,000 for a certified
third party. Then we had to pay for the retest after making modifications and the retest cost about $22,000.
So that is one example. The second example is a 36 cell salt water tower. Of course both of these contracts
that I am citing had a drift guarantee which was connected to a 10% retention. In one case that retention
was quiet significant (in the millions). So the 36-cell tower had 16 cells individually tested for drift to have
that be the average. That drift test cost well over $65,000.

8
Baker – It sounds like you need to find where the drift is coming from and not try to test it.

Mirsky – In giving that answer I would like to ask a question. We have seen a recent contract where the
requested guaranteed drift rate was .0002% with the clients desire to change the 2 to a 1. I would like to
hear if anybody has had a certified test done and has achieved that level.

Bob Burger, Burger Cooling Tower Company –An accurate drift test gets very expensive. We have an
inexpensive test drift which in our ego we call the “Burger Drift Detection System.” Short stack, you stand
on the motor if water hits you in the face your drifting. If you can’t get up to it you look inside the hatch
and see water bouncing around, you’re drifting. We tell our clients there are only two reasons for drift.
One is the improper selection of drift eliminator by a bidder who did not consider the air velocity and ended
up as the low bidder. Proper operation of a drift eliminator is a function of air velocity, so we would check
the air velocity. We would call our friends at Brentwood and say we have 750 feet per minute velocity,
what would you recommend. The other reason for drift is that even with the best drift eliminator they may
not be professionally installed. Water is insidious, you leave a hole, water goes through. Drift is merely a
function of air velocity. If you know the air velocity, you pick the proper drift eliminator and if the low
bidder picks something cheaper it is still going to drift.

DesJardins – I was involved about 15-20 years ago with a product that was called a Stretford Cooling
Tower. It’s not water, it was cooling the process fluid that included vanadium and some other stuff. There
were test applications that required .0001 on the drift. The testing that was done was not done with an
isokenetic-sampling machine but it was done with sensitize paper sent off to a laboratory to measure the
droplet size and predict the drift. It was a very complicated, not as expensive as isokenetic-sampling,
complicated. It took a long time to do the testing even with a small tower. Yes, we made the guarentee,
but air velocity through the tower was about 300 feet a minute. It was a crossflow tower with a honeycomb
drift eliminator. To say that you can or can’t do it, I’m sure that you can. However I was on a tower last
week that I’m sure there was virtually no drift at all but what I noticed was a lot of condensation in the
structure. The mechanical equipment at this time of the year is cold. The condensation gets blown off as a
droplet and the velocity carries it to the fan deck level (it wasn’t carrying to the parking lot). When drift is
being measured, you are actually measuring water containing various dissolved salts. Condensation is pure
water and only a drift test is going to detect whether you are actually getting drift or condensation in the
plenum area. The other thing that I noted in the question is that the gentlemen replaced the fill and the old
splash bar is perpendicular to the air flow. If the fill is changed to be parallel to air flow there will probably
be increased performance but there will also be an increased air rate which could cause increased drift.

Willa – In the first place there is a real problem of distinguishing recondensation from actual drift. A lot of
times you’ll see that in the thane? Work area. The second thing that I would like to comment on is when
you get a .0001% specification, that is specifically refered to as liars contest because the ability to measure
the drift, the plus or minus error in the drift measurement is more than the amount we are looking for. So
that is fantasyland. The third thing that I would like to add to Mr. Burger’s comment is that he is correct
with one additional thing that effects drift and that is droplet size. We had an eight cell six cube crossflow
tower, new D fifteen drift eliminators installed properly, stopped all the drift and everyone was happy.
Three weeks later they called me back and everything in the refinery, within three blocks, was being
soaked. We got inside and drift was coming right through the D fifteens. It was more like a fog than a
drift, extremely small. In that three weeks they had started to add 15 ppm of surfactant. They removed the
surfactant from the water and within 48 hours the drift completely stopped. They restarted surfactant feed
at 6 ppm surfactant everything was still fine, but at 9 ppm surfactant the tower started drifting bad. You
have to be careful that you don’t get to small of droplets by too much addition of surfactant.

Laronge – Dick when you looked at a Stretford Tower I don’t think it is fair to compare the drift
measurement with a standard tower. The problem is that what you are trying to do is to use a catalytic
reduction of sulfur in a Stretford Tower with paper that is coated with lead acetate to precipitate lead
sulfate. You are really trapping the sulfur to calculate the drift when you go through the process. I don’t
think that is comparable to a water tower. The second comment is as you go back in the early 1970’s
people were measuring drift all over with what was called a salt leaf test. They would literally go out and
collect leaves. They would take distilled water use it as eluent, spray the water on the leaf and try to back

9
calculate drift and how much salt was being formed as a result of drift. They tried to set up a model that
measured drift by measuring the concentration of the cooling water and how much of the common salt was
collected on the leaves. The numbers ran from over a percent down to four decimal places after the zero
and I don’t think else counted. It wasn’t a very good method.

Mirsky – Jim (Willa) uses the term fantasyland when it comes to measuring very low drift values. It isn’t
fantasyland to the owner/operator who has to meet his air quality permits, nor the cooling tower
manufacturer who has supplied the tower and submitted a contractual guarantee if a third party drift test is
run. I think this is a serious situation at some facilities in certain states, like Florida and California. It will
probably spread to other states. I would like to challenge the Performance & Technology Committee,
perhaps, to develop a white paper that’s a BAT (Best Available Technology) statement. I think the industry
needs it. In certain states and certain facilities it would be meaningful to be able to provide this to the
consultants and to the designers who are making these commitments.

Baker – Another P&T hot topic we will probably get into soon. There is one more question along that line
that I think we probably already answered.

Liberatore– We are experiencing erosion/corrosion of our gearboxes and support frames. We believe it is
caused due to excessive drift. We are considering raising the drift eliminators. Is there a thermal benefit if
we do this?

Baker – Raising the DE’s? Am I missing something here? It must be counterflow. Italo are you present
that you may comment on that question.

Liberatore – The question that I stated was in reference to the drift eliminators. We are considering raising
the location on a counterflow tower. We have an excessive amount of erosion on the support steel and
gearboxes. We want to know if there is a benefit to providing structural support to those gearboxes is there
a thermal benefit if we raise those drift eliminators.

Mortensen – It would seem to me that if the pressure drop is the same, the effect on performance would be
the same and that location probably wouldn’t effect that, but Dave is probably more qualified to comment
on that.

Stackhouse – My comment would be that in fact by moving the drift eliminator closer to the fan you
reduce the available plenum size on the cooling tower. This has the effect of changing air velocity
distribution through the drift eliminators so you will have a small deterioration in performance as a result of
higher velocities through a portion of the drift eliminators as well as the potential for increased drift at
higher velocities. On the other hand you are probably getting the drift eliminators further away from the
distribution system. From a drift point of view you probably would come out breaking even or better by
doing that. There should be, I would think a small performance effect in the negative direction.

Hamilton – One thing you should do on the thing is to check the water distribution system to find out if
water is impelling itself directly on to the drift eliminators. If it is not, I would not raise the drift
eliminators because it will hurt a little on performance because of the reduction in plenum chamber. If the
water is actually splashing on to the drift eliminators because the nozzles are improperly tipped or
something like that then you might benefit a little from it.

Baker – What I am hearing from these experts is that we need to really look at where the drift is coming
from. There are many drift eliminators on the market that guarantee a low drift. If you are getting
excessive drift, it isn’t the drift eliminator itself as much as some outside force causing the water to get into
the plenum area, or the distribution system leak or any number of things.

Mirsky – I’m vaguely familiar with Italo’s tower. What I would suggest is to build on what was said by
Dave Stackhouse. Perhaps an area profile measurement ought to be taken in the plenum to see if the
velocities increase as you go higher or if they decrease. You can have both forces at work in a round tower.
So I don’t think it is a given that the air velocities increase as you move up a couple of feet. Taking some

10
airflow profiles makes sense. Perhaps you would move the drift eliminators to the level where the velocity
is the lowest.

Hanks – (Refers to paper TP99-08) 1) If galvanized tubes are used in the evaporative steam condenser,
what maximum pH and alkalinity is recommended for the circulating water?

Hutton – I jumped up real quick to answer that question and I maybe I should just throw that back to the
water treating guys because this is a galvanized steel tube bundle in a straight-through water system. There
is no different between that and a cooling tower other than the circulating water is not going through piping
to a condenser in a building, it is just being pumped over the galvanized steel surface, so it is exposed to the
structure the air flow and so forth. The treatment program would just have to be compatible with the
technique used for galvanized steel.

Baker – OK, why the same program?

Mortensen – As I recall the charts from the paper, I think we are probably looking at a pH of 9.5 on the
high side and 6 to 6.5 on the low side. It is really more sensitive on the low side because you are not going
to run above 9.5 very often unless you have some process variation that takes you there. The other end, if
you are using acid or anything like that you can go below the 6 to 6.5 range pretty easily.

Laronge – I would like to disagree with Ken, if you don’t mind, on your upper limit. That is too high for
zinc. I would tell you the absolute maximum to avoid dissolution of the zinc ought to be a pH of between
8.0 and 8.5. Zinc solubility increases very rapidly in the pH region above 8.5. Also the big question I have
is why would anyone ever put galvanized tubes in that particular service. There is a mentality that says you
can get better performance if you go from carbon steel to galvanized tubes and to the best of my knowledge
that has never been found to work. It does cost more money to put galvanized in and it may be prettier but
it doesn’t have any great advantages as far as performance is concerned. Along that line the American Zinc
Association Handbook has a statement that states the use of galvanized is not designed for any kind of
immersion service duty but designed for wet/dry and intermittent service duty. That’s why when you see a
cyclone fence galvanized is great but when you see a tube that is going to be wetted, galvanized is not so
great. Further more if you have any environmental changes zinc is very chemically reactive relative to
many other substances like ammonia and a lot of natural occurring materials that you would have including
water treatment chemicals. You really complicate the overall process by using galvanized.

Ritz – I believe you can operate successfully anywhere from 7 to 9 pH range with galvanized piping. The
critical time that is involved is the first 45 days when this material is put into circulating water. There is a
phenomenon known as white rust that occurs. The recommendation, and from our experience if you keep
your pH below 8.0 for that first 45 days you can minimize the formation of this white rust which is zinc
carbonate. If you start out in an alkaline pH range you can end up with this zinc carbonate formation, white
rust, which can cause problems in your system.

Laronge – You have a problem with zinc in the galvanized service because most people use zinc to stop
corrosion of steel. We are talking about a system that maybe well over 165°F at the point of which it
operates. In those systems zinc actually becomes noble to steel and the steel becomes the anode in the
corrosion reaction. So what you are doing is corroding the steel and not using the zinc as a sacrificial
anode. This is another reason to not consider the use of zinc for galvanizing.

Hutton – We are not purposing the use of galvanized steel on any application that would go to 160°F. In
most cases for an evaporative condenser application we are talking about condensing it 110°, 115°, maybe
120°F, so we are not at that high of a temperature. I wouldn’t question Tom on anything having to do with
water chemistry, but there is over 50 years of experience with galvanized steel tube bundles in evaporative
condenser applications. As long as the treatment program is designed properly they operate very
satisfactorily. It is not the same as the mill galvanized steel that is used in structure of some types of
equipment it is hot dipped galvanized steel on the tube bundles, a little bit of a different animal.

11
Tory Tvedt, Puckorius & Associates – Back in former life with my former employer we had specifications
that were eventually changed where we specified galvanized steel piping as a standard. What I have found
and what we promulgated within the company is to treat these as if they were carbon steel. Put in water
treating programs that would protect carbon steel piping on the assumption, and we found to be the case on
numerous times that the galvanized was totally deteriorated within 1 to 2 years. As long as we provided
adequate protection for carbon steel we got very good useful life out of the pipes. We eventually changed
the specifications and quit spending the money on the galvanized.

Baker – The second part of the question has been answered, but you water treating professionals are going
to have to help me out. If present CTI guidelines for zinc coating are followed, what is the recommended
method for feeding acid for pH/alkalinity control for moderate alkalinity make-up water?

Willa – I don’t know about the zinc standard, but we are always having trouble trying to add the acid. If
you will take the little stainless steel ¼ inch line and take it around the curb and drip it into the basin, the
curb for 6 foot is eaten out a foot deep. There is a hole in the basin where the unmixed acid is heavier than
water and falls to the floor eating the concrete. The acid has got to be put in ½ of a PVC 6 inch pipe split in
two with baffels in it or a lead lined box. The acid must be mixed with water before it is turned loose in the
basin. Otherwise it will chew concrete to pieces.

Baker – He (George Hanks) is talking about the makeup water for one thing. He wants to know how to
feed the acid for pH/alkalinity control to maintain moderate alkalinity in his makeup water.

Laronge –I think the CTI guidelines, and I don’t want to be held to this, but in the white paper that came
out I believe it was 6.6 to 7.2 pH. I believe it had to be below 7.5 under all conditions in order for the
recommended phosphate treatment program, which was, supposed to be the most effective known
treatment for galvanized water. I believe that was the upper limit. The program doesn’t work if you go any
higher in pH so it might as well be a good recommendation.

Andy Ward, Thomas M. Laronge, Inc. – If you are going to feed acid to a galvanized structure certainly
you want to make sure that the water gets well mixed before it comes into contact with the galvanizing.
Based on my experience, that is going to be a more severe corrosion issue than what Jim suggested with
concrete. You can use either a plastic bucket with bricks in it to hold it down below the water line.
Preferably return a water stream in so there is lots of dilution. You can use a wooden trough.

Bob Miller, Baltimore Aircoil Company – As a purchaser, I’m always being told not to trust “the other
guy’s” ratings. What can I do to ensure the tower I buy performs as specified? (This was asked at the
Multi-Agency Testing Report)

Mortensen – There is some work on a broad specification under ES&M starting at this point. I don’t know
how much thermal performance is going to be addressed in that work. I would think if we get into that we
would have to have significant thermal committee participation in determining how to specify that number.
There can be some very broad numbers in terms of 100% and no less or whatever you choose; 98%, 99%
and no less with retainer were some general suggestions made. I think we will have to look at that
industrial specification to decide how far we want to go with that.

Willa – You put in your specification that the tower will be tested by a third party. Make sure the test is
carried out. That is very important. If a company has a history of having a specification for testing, but
carry out the test the manufacturers are not going to believe you. When it comes time to test and a
manufacturer makes suggestions such as: 1) using their test equipment and personnel, 2) getting a certain
amount of rebate on a particular price, 3) the test is carried out when it is cool, or 4) everybody is happy
and the manufacturer will give you a rebate to skip the test all together, don’t do it. Run the test. If you are
worried about the tower you bought, don’t withhold 10%, withhold 20%.

Stackhouse – I would add to what is Jim is saying – write contracts with teeth in it. Put specified penalties
and remedies and make it clear that not only are you going to test, but if you test and the tower does not
pass the test, bad things will happen.

12
Baker – And back it up.

Hamilton – That is what I was going to say – specify what the penalty is.

Mirsky – One thing Tom or Jim did not say is that industry really has consolidated. There are the staffs in
cost cutting moods. Many companies don’t have specialists any more. There are curves and graphs on fill
available in the market place. I think it is very prudent to spend money if you are challenged and think that
if there is any question about the specification, hire a consultant. There are several consultants available, a
few in this room right now who probably have the tools to make a determination if there is some problem.

Allan Oden, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company – For an owner/operator, in a specification I would
recommend that you ask the manufacturer to provide a five year history of acceptance tests that have done
on their towers. I am talking about just the first test on acceptance test. You can get a history and
hopefully the manufacturer will give you truthful data.

Hutton – One additional note to add is a plug for the CTI Certification program. I don’t know from the
user’s question what category of towers he is talking about, but if it is a category where the cost of a test is
prohibitive compared to the cost of the tower itself, the CTI Certification program is intended for that type
of unit. It provides the purchaser the same kind of independent verification performance for packaged
towers and catalog type towers as the CTI Acceptance Tests do for a large tower. That holds for
manufacturers to those type towers who are now participants in the CTI program

Baker – That is exactly right. The certified lines of towers are published in each issue of the CTI Journal.
That is what the certification program is designed for as Dave said, for the smaller where testing may not
be the cost option.

Tvedt – I just want to offer a few comments on experiences that I’ve had purchasing industrial cooling
towers. Number one is to echo when testing is done, almost always the tower test will be 100% or better
when the supplier knows this up front. Secondly, one of the problems found in capital projects, is that
towards end the budget runs out and it is time to test and management is looking to cut everything that can
be cut. One way we found around that was to include the test as part of the contract to the cooling tower
manufacturer for a third party test and it will be the manufacturer's responsibility to pay. It’s not that we
didn't pay, it’s just built into the contract price so the test gets done. The third comment I have is on the
critical importance of towers meeting their design perameters. An example was a tower that was thermally
upgraded only to meet its original design specification. The upgrade was paid for in the first three months
of operation. This plant had gone ten years before the upgrade was performed. I would love to have had
2% of the money the company didn’t make because of that tower. I wouldn’t be here, I would be in the
Riviera.

Burger – A plug for CTI. You should have in your contract that the tower is to be tested only by a
Certified Testing company recognized by CTI. The manufacturer should not test their own unit because
no mother is going to comb her own child ugly. We were called in on a tower that the customer said wasn’t
performing right. They had test results that they had showed a 102% tower. The testers said the
manufacturer guaranteed a 15° range and 7° approach. They tested the tower and showed they had an 18°
range and a 5° approach. The only problem was the tower was designed for 80° wet bulb and the test was
done at 74° wet bulb. I told them they didn’t have a 2° plus tower, you have 3° minus or a total of 5°
deficient. When I told that to the plant manager and explained the relationship with the wet bulb he asked
me not to mention it at the wrap up meeting. What we have to do is get the word around to join CTI if you
use cooling towers and make sure you have the certified CTI test on your tower.

Mike Bailey, Reliant Energy (former Houston Lighting & Power) – As a result of a recent sulfate limits in
water discharge, the use of sulfuric acid for pH control has become an issue. Are any of the members
aware of any other acid that is being used in cooling tower? Acid use is not an option due to silica
concentrations.

13
Baker – Mike can you expand a little more on the question.

Bailey – This sulfate discharge limit is new and chloride will be an issue too. Hydrochloric acid won’t be a
fix either. Our water treatment vendor has run their program and we top out at about 8.5 as far a scaling
intensity. We have to have an acid and we are looking for some alternatives.

Johnson – You say you can run at a pH of 8.5 and you are also limited on chloride. If you can run the pH
that high and you can use a scale inhibitor program, that’s sort of in the mildly alkaline range of operation.
Carbon dioxide might also be an option for you. Generally, it isn’t used in cooling towers at any lower pH
than that because it is stripped off rapidly. The rate of that stripping is a function of pH. However if the
pH can run somewhere in the mid 8’s and the treatment program is compatible you might be able to do that.
It isn’t going to be as inexpensive as using sulfuric acid but it is an option. I could give you another, kind
of more off the wall thing that I came across. I read about a case history Great Britian similar to yours
where they couldn’t use acid. They fed ammonia into the system and backed off on the biocontrol to let the
bugs generate nitric acid in situs. Obviously there is some trade off with that because you would have to let
the system run pretty dirty to do that. Here again, people have done all sorts of things.

Willa – I’ve been in several towers recently that operate in that high of pH ranges that they maintain control
strictly by blowdown. When you are running that high it is sometimes practical to do it by blowdown
alone.

Ballaigues – When converting Series 15 & Series 18 crossflow towers from splash fill to honeycomb fill,
excessive splash-out occurs, particularly when the fan cycles off. What can be done to minimize this,
excluding the use of an integrated inlet louver?

Baker – That particular tower is a crossflow tower as stated and originally probably came out with a splash
type and now has evidently converted to film type.

Mortensen – Sometimes a row of nozzles can be blanked out nearest the louver face; drill out orifices
inside of that to try and pull some of the water back in. That works to some degree. But if you’re fan off
toward the bottom you will have a significant amount of water pile up. It won’t solve your problem
completely but it will move it back a little.

Baker – It will also depend on how close the new film fill is to the louver face or if you set it back in a little
away from the louver face.

Sid Udall, Tucson Electric Power – We had Marley 600 crossflow cooling towers constructed in the early
1980’s. The fill is plastic ladder. Please give me comments on the replacement of existing fill with
“updated” fill designs. Has anyone done this and economically justified the capital cost?

Mortensen – The cases that I know of have been larger than that. They have been concrete type towers
where you have gone to a film fill crossflow to a counter flow type of conversion. Typically, they have
justified themselves economically but some of my cohorts may want to comment on that too.

Willa – A favorite habit right now is upgrading a crossflow tower to 600 Series by putting film pack in it.
Marley has a flash fill. Brentwood has the crossflow fill. I’ve been doing basically two different methods
like a 2-foot thick slice starts out at the top outside and runs all the way to the bottom. At about a 45 degree
angel, it winds up near the bottom of the drift eliminators and then regular splash fill on each side. The
other is a stepwise procedure. You start out with 4-foot wide film impact fill 6-foot deep against the louver
face. The next 6 foot down you move it in with just about maybe a foot overlap from the previous one and
another 6 foot drop continuing all the way down to the bottom of the tower. I’ve tested both types of these,
some of them work and some don’t, but it is a way to upgrade a crossflow fill tower.

Udall – We have a lot of solids, salts and things that we foul with the film packed type fill. So I would be
looking at basically to another splash type fill. You are talking a lot of money to change that out and do
you really see a difference in performance from splash type fill to another.

14
Baker – I would recommend reviewing the paper presented by Bob Fulkerson this morning. That was a
very informative paper. A lot of testing went into the researchfor the paper. Make some comparisons like
that then just contact the fill manufacturer of your choice to get some ratings for your particular application.

Willa – If this is a tower that the water treatment, the fill, or algae is not going to allow you to use a film
pack. You can take out the ladder fill and put in a splash type fill parallel to airflow. Use 4-inches wide fill
on 8/8 centers and this will out perform the ladder fill that you have now and still be a splash fill tower.

Baker – In most application, but again you need to rate you fill with your tower.

Lynn Stampley, S&S Sales & Supplies – Is there any effect on concrete basins using this chemistry?

Laronge – I believe the question is whether or not the chemistry that was discussed in TP99-12 involving
the ammonia and the acid has any effect on the concrete basin.

There were no comments on the question.

Steve Bartlett, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. – We are very interested in replacing existing wood
members with fiberglass structural shapes when we perform maintenance/retrofit activities. 1) Have the
suppliers been developing this option? 2) How are the dissimilar shapes connected? 3) Do we have to re-
engineer (structurally) the tower to ensure strength & mechanical integrity?

Mortensen – We have done significant basin structure and plenum replacements with fiberglass members.
I believe we have 3 ½-inch members available that replace exactly in kind and we can do structural
calculations but I don’t think there is a lot of change in terms of structure. In fact, I think it’s stronger than
the member it is replacing in terms of structural capabilities. Joints, we would use sleeve type designs that
would have large bearing areas for the bolts so that you don’t get rip out of the fastener at that location in a
similar way that we do to our standard fiberglass tower construction.

Baker – Some of the problems that I have seen encountered are the difference in dimensions of the
fiberglass drop in structure versus the wood structure that they are replacing. As far as decay, they are
obviously a great choice.

Mirsky – There is dissimilarity in some of the shapes that you would be replacing. The most significant
one of course is the column. They do come close to matching up. Some may have to be shimmed. The
fiberglass shapes for the most part are like the steel shapes where you have tubular, I-beams, wide flange
beams, angles and channels. So there is a little extra re-engineering if you have to match existing wood
pieces.

Baker – Ok, you’ve answered, yes there are some dissimilar shapes, there is an option being considered
and probably you have to do some re-engineering.

Mirsky – Just one other comment to confirm what Ken says. For the most part the pieces of dissimilar
strength are stronger so that does not become an issue. The one thing that I do love about fiberglass is the
fan decks that are being used today. I think one the items that goes the fastest in a tower is a fan deck made
out of plywood. The pultruded shapes that typically over 1-foot wide, around 2-inches deep as far as the
reinforcement that they have in the vertical direction comes with a non-skid surface. So it is a perfect
material for fan decks.

Baker – The hot water basins are also a good application.

Burger – I have a question for Mike Whittemore. Backtracking to the conversion of large crossflow to
counterflow cooling towers, we have been quiet successful in using the 1900. The new fill you’ve
developed Mike, which is based on some 1900 that’s quiet non-clogging, have you done much
experimenting with that? How much bad water would that take on this type of conversion?

15
Whittemore – Are you talking about the VF19+? The VF19+ is a new low fouling fill that we just
introduced. It is thermal upgrade over the other fills that we have introduced before. It is for counterflow
only and would be a good choice for that application.

Rick Foree, Danfoss Electronic Drives – Haven’t heard any discussion about VFD’s. One of the things
that we are here for is to try to get an idea of what kind of issues that there have been in the field. I
understand there has been some delamination of drive shafts, some gearbox problems and such things. If
there are people in the audience that have had problems running electronic drives could you please get with
me at some point in time and let’s chat about what some of those issues are. I would like to get an idea of
what the issues are that we are trying to address.

Baker – Are you talking about veriable frequency drives?

Foree – Correct.

Veil – I may have asked this question last year but I don’t think I have an answer that I am comfortable
with yet. The scenario is where we want to design a cooling tower for a northern United States climate
with significant freezing potential, we want to run the coldest possible water to find maybe 45° average
cold water outlet during the freezing winter months and have a tower that will run unattended during the
evenings. I have heard some suppliers say go crossflow, others say counterflow. I would just like some
suggestions at this point.

Willa – Counterflow.

Baker – Do you already have the tower in place or are you getting ready to install the tower?

Veil – We have many towers where we are trying to run lower water temperatures for efficiency of our
facilities and we are seeing significant icing either limiting the ability to drop the temperature, form curtain
ice or have structural damage if we run too low a water temperature. I’m trying instead of running 60°
averages running 45° or lower if possible. So if we starting with a clean sheet of paper, I hear Jim Willa
say go counterflow yet other suppliers say crossflow.

Baker – I think there are operational benefits to both if operated properly.

Willa – It is just easier to close off a portion or all of the louvers on the north side, etc. in a 12-foot high
louver than in a 36-foot. Generally, in the real cold climates, up in Canada I see counterflows with boxes
built through the louver two feet wide for air inlet louvers and all the rest of the louvers shut down. Either
one can be done, it just which is the easiest.

Veil – I’m not talking about extreme winters, I’m talking about northern United States, Pennsylvania across
to Chicago where there will be significant icing during the winter months.

Baker – There is one comment that I would like to make. I think the main emphasis should be on the
operation of the tower whether it is crossflow or counterflow. When you shut fans down and turn them
back on, to get that cold water the fans will be left on all night long, which is what you were saying. When
you come back, you have an iceberg. I think that whether cross or counter you can get in to some serious
problems if you don’t operate the fans or stay on top of them during the winter months.

Mirsky – My response would be, and have discussed this for most of my cooling tower career, is like Jim
said go counterflow. The counterflow film fills are a corrugated shape and can with stand very heavy
loads. Of course ice will form and it will be colder out. When it is colder the materials can typically
handle even heavier loads than PVC’s would when it is warm. The strength of the counterflow film fill is
related to its sheet thickness as well and also to its temperature of operation. The testing that we have done
on our packs we measure loads in the actual supported condition. Here you basically have a very small
bearing surface on a wood beam or concrete beam of around 75-125 pounds per square foot which is very

16
significant ice formation. Let me conclude by saying what you are doing here is not avoiding the ice but
preventing the damage to the fill.

Stackhouse – I would just like to add that I know people have operated crossflows very successfully in
severe winter conditions. However, there is a basic fact about crossflow in that the cold air meets the water
across the entire inlet face of the tower. You have a very large range through that section of the tower. As
the air moves back through the fill section the range decreases. So you get a rather non-uniform water
temperature distribution across the bottom of the fill. So the minimum temperature is considerably
different than the average temperature across a crossflow section. A counterflow tends to introduce the air
more uniformly across the fill and there is much less variation between minimum and average. I’ve always
felt that the counterflow design is much more forgiving in cold weather situations. I guess the other thing I
would say is that it sounds like this is an obvious application for some sort of automatic control system that
keeps this thing running through the night without operator.

Oden – I have just a quick question on the Legionaires Disease. With the Legionaires Disease the organism
grows in the cooling tower system so I would think that you would mainly be concerned if it was a closed
cycle system and not like a once through helper tower.

Baker – Right, closed cycle system is what we are talking about.

Laronge – If the system is really closed there should be no danger. Remember, and this was missed badly
this morning, that last slide that we didn’t see was, “did the cooling tower really cause Legionnella?”
The answer to that question is much more complex and generally that disease requires an aerosol to be
formed. Just drinking the water does not allow the organism to transmit. So if you have a leak, for
example, from a closed loop system where you could form an aerosol there is a danger. If you have a
system where you cannot form an aerosol, to the best of my knowledge, you don’t have a problem. If it is
closed – you don’t have a problem.

Oden – But my question was with a helper cooling tower would you pull river water in, run it through the
condenser, send it to the cooling tower and then back into the river. Since you don’t recirculate that water
over, would there be less of a problem with developing Legionaires?

Laronge – I don’t know if I would want to say less but there was an example that Janice Stout had up this
morning that was a water caused case of legionnella where three people died. About the third slide she had
was a government office building in San Francisco and that particular case did not involve a cooling tower.
It was just loose water flow near the intake of the building. My opinion would be that that would be
considered as a possible source of transmitting Legionnella.

Baker – I would like to thank all of you for coming to the operating seminar.

17