Power Plant Bromide Discharges and Downstream Drinking Water Systems in Pennsylvania

Abstract

Coal-fired power plants equipped with wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems have been implicated in increasing bromide levels and subsequent increases in disinfection byproducts at downstream drinking water plants. Bromide was not included as a regulated constituent in the recent steam electric effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) since the U.S. EPA analysis suggested few drinking water facilities would be affected by bromide discharges from power plants. The present analysis uses a watershed approach to identify Pennsylvania drinking water intakes downstream of wet FGD discharges and to assess the potential for bromide discharge effects. Twenty-two (22) public drinking water systems serving 2.5 million people were identified as being downstream of at least one wet FGD discharge. During mean August conditions (generally low-flow, minimal dilution) in receiving rivers, the median predicted bromide concentrations contributed by wet FGD at Pennsylvania intake locations ranged from 5.2 to 62 μg/L for the Base scenario (including only natural bromide in coal) and from 16 to 190 μg/L for the Bromide Addition scenario (natural plus added bromide for mercury control); ranges depend on bromide loads and receiving stream dilution capacity.

Comparison of ferrate and ozone pre-oxidation on disinfection byproduct formation from chlorination and chloramination

“…Table 2 summarizes the experimental conditions used in this study. A resulting bromide concentration of 0.85 mg/L is high compared to more common values for surface water bodies in the United States (Amy et al, 1995); however, bromide concentrations may be elevated in some areas due to power generation facilities (Good and Vanbriesen, 2017), and Brconcentrations of this order in ground and surface waters have been previously studied with respect to oxidation and DBPs (Allard et al, 2013).…”

Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater Composition and Implications for Regulatory and Treatment Train Design

“…Existing tools, including PISCES , and the Electric Power Research Institute’s Toxic Release Inventory Tool, use this mass balance approach. These models are designed to provide nationwide estimates of trace metal releases to the environment and facilitate TRI reporting, rather than simulating interannual variability in trace element concentrations in FGD wastewater at the plant level (i.e., for individual plants) or predicting the costs of regulatory compliance. , There are also several mass balance models of trace element behavior at coal-fired power plants at the national ,, or subnational level , in the literature. However, the majority of these studies are focused on partitioning of trace elements to the gaseous phase.…”

“…However, the majority of these studies are focused on partitioning of trace elements to the gaseous phase. We are aware of two studies addressing liquid pollution, , but these have focused exclusively on Br and the total mass discharged rather than concentration in wastewater. Creating plant-level models to assist in ELG compliance requires combining the mass balance approach of these tools with volume estimates of FGD purge streams and validating model estimates against FGD wastewater quality samples from a diverse set of plants.…”

Temporal and Spatial Changes in Bromine Incorporation into Drinking Water–Disinfection By-Products in Pennsylvania

“…Anthropogenic bromide discharges associated with fossil fuel extraction (shale gas development) and utilization (coal-fired power plants) have been increasing in Pennsylvania (Good and VanBriesen 2016;Weaver et al 2016;States et al 2013;Wilson and VanBriesen 2012), particularly southwestern Pennsylvania. These discharges are unregulated because bromide has a high human and ecotoxicity threshold (Flury and Papritz 1993) and therefore poses little risk when discharged to the aquatic environment.…”

“…DBP concentrations vary in response to a number of factors, including treatment plant operational conditions and source water differences (Ged and Boyer 2014;Singer 1994). Source and finished water qualities in the United States were characterized during the USEPA Information Collection Rule (ICR) (USEPA 2000a).…”