RE: Sae1 Oct 2020 19:14
Dear Cara, Phil,
On our last call I mentioned line 32 of your materials inventory to clarify (historic fly ash accumulation total stored / storage volume) – apparent inconsistency. I’m now looking through at the projected reagent consumptions (with relation to BRef / BAT), and could I get you also to take a look at:
Line 21 – Urea – clarify if 2430 TPA is per unit or for two unit operation – column heading and line text inconsistent?
Line 35 – PAC – A couple of queries. Text refers to Lime usage not PAC. Figure of 40.5 kg/h /283-4 TPA/unit appears reasonable, but doesn’t seem to immediately correlate with planning and “2 unit” stated consumptions of 630 and 383 TPA. I think 630 TPA may be 90% Load factor corrected, but please clarify, I can’t see how 383 is arrived at.
Also Line 20 – (Nash STP) water. Quoted at 3,218,408 l/annum [= 3,218 m3/annum]. This seems very different from submission water balance diagram which indicated 366,488 m3 Nash water to cooling tower, 392,188m3 total with storm water. Please clarify. Exact figure not necessary, but order of magnitude is required. 3,218 m3 is less than W2 discharge arising which is inconsistent. If line 20 is actually m3, I then seem to be a factor of 10 too high compared to original water balance diagram)?
Given that I’ve looked at a limited number of line entries and have spotted several seeming inconsistencies, please could I ask you to review all parts, and resubmit? I’m not sure there’s consistency in presentation of data for 1 unit or two, and in application of a reducing load factor. If, on the other hand (as is possible) I’m misunderstanding the information sent, please accept my apologies, and clarify.
Also, I confirm apparent receipt of various larger files via fileshare. I’m having connection problems so as yet haven’t been able to download them all. But… They all appear to be there as sent, so should be Okay. I’ll recheck next week, and will let you know if there any issues.
Kind Regards
David
Dr David Poole
Dated 1/10/20