Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 235

Wireless Product Applications for Utilities

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3)
and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this
publication, 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 any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the
document prior to publication.
Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

TR-106371
2712-11

Final Report, April 1997

Prepared by
General Physics Corporation
6700 Alexander Bell Drive
Columbia, Maryland, 21231

Project Manager
J. P. Dimmer

Project Team
Sheppard T. Powell Associates
1915 Aliceanna St.
Baltimore, Maryland 21231

K. J. Shields

Jonas, Inc.
1113 Faun Road
Wilmington, Delaware 19803

O. Jonas

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 Steam Boiler O&M Cost Reduction Target
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) NAMED 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:
GENERAL PHYSICS CORPORATION

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive,
P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (510) 934-4212.

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 1997 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
REPORT SUMMARY

The purity of water and steam is central to ensuring fossil plant component availability
and reliability. This report, which describes formal cycle chemistry improvement
programs at nine utilities, will assist utilities in achieving significant operation and
maintenance cost reductions.

Background
As the first step in improving cycle chemistry, EPRI has published a set of guidelines for
each cycle chemistry. However, cycle-chemistry-influenced problems still occur and are
usually a direct result of repeat incidents of impurity ingress into the steam/water cycle
and the subsequent corrosion and deposition of the heat transfer surfaces. To break this
cycle, utilities need to implement a formalized, utility-wide, cycle chemistry
improvement program (CCIP).

Approach
The project team drew upon the technical information and management concepts
throughout the set of cycle chemistry guidelines to develop a five-module training
manual (EPRI report TR-103038). In August 1991, EPRI asked nine utilities representing
about 48,000 MW (75 drum and 20 once-through units), to demonstrate these materials
over a five-year period. The project team visited each utility and trained a
multidiscipline group of utility staff in all aspects of cycle chemistry improvement. Each
utility formulated a utility-specific CCIP with assistance from project team members
during periodic visits. At the end of the project, the team compiled the plans.

Results
The CCIP has been used to train more than 800 utility staff. As a result of the CCIP,
utilities have documented up to 4% increase in unit availability and operating cost
reductions in excess of $3 million per year. These savings have accrued from a number
of sources, which include reduction in boiler tube failures influenced by cycle
chemistry; reduction in the number or frequency of boiler chemical cleans; reductions in
turbine deposits and problems; elimination of, or lower frequency of, condenser leaks;
and lower system chemical costs. To achieve the benefits from their CCIP, each utility
developed a corporate mandate and philosophy, which provides a commitment to
adopting cycle chemistry limits and procedures together with the EPRI minimum level
of “core” instrumentation. A specification has been developed for this core level.

iii
EPRI Perspective
Boiler tube failures and turbine problems influenced by cycle chemistry are generally
understood. A CCIP helps utilities develop in-house management programs to avoid
initial and repeat failures. Part of this process is to ensure that the optimum boiler water
and feedwater chemistry is selected for each unit; during this project, 18 units were
converted from all-volatile treatment to oxygenated treatment, and 28 drum boilers
were converted from congruent phosphate treatment to equilibrium phosphate
treatment. A new guideline (EPRI report TR-105040) provides detailed procedures and
road maps for optimization.
A combined CCIP and Boiler Tube Failure Reduction program is currently being
developed by EPRI; this will be available for demonstration by utilities in 1997.

TR-106371
Interest Categories
Fossil steam plant performance optimization
Fossil steam plant O&M cost reduction
Advanced fossil power systems
Strategic R&D

Key Words
Power plant availability
Water chemistry
Feedwater
Steam
Boiler tube failures
Turbine blade failures
Corrosion/deposition

iv
EPRI Licensed Material
Summary

ABSTRACT

The overall cost impact of cycle chemistry problems in fossil plants is typically hidden
within the statistics of component forced outages, efficiency losses and premature end
of useful component life. Corrosion of components in U.S. utility steam generating
plants is responsible for an estimated 50% of all forced outages and over three billion
dollars a year in additional operating and maintenance costs. These problems are
usually the direct result of repeat incidents of impurity ingress, corrosion, and/or
corrosion product generation, transport, and deposition on heat transfer and other
power generation process equipment surfaces.

The only way to prevent repeat incidents of equipment corrosion and deposition
problems is to implement a formalized cycle chemistry improvement program that
addresses the root causes of these problems. This report describes such a program being
implemented at nine (9) utilities under EPRI research project RP2712-11, “Cycle
Chemistry Improvement Program.” Interim utility results, after almost three years of
project participation, have demonstrated up to 4% increases in unit availability and
operating cost reductions in excess of $3,000,000/yr. These excellent results are due to
use of state-of-the-art cycle chemistry water treatments, minimum “core” level of
instrumentation, monitoring and/or process control systems, and improved
management, technical, operation, maintenance and administrative policies and
practices.

Guidance from participating Utilities, that engaged in extensive upgrading of sampling


systems and on-line analyzers, is provided in Appendix C. It addresses the evaluation
criteria, identification of candidate instruments, in-plant assessments, and
recommendations to management. A template is also provided, which other utilities
can use to develop instrument technical specifications for purchasing and installing the
minimum EPRI “core” level of instrumentation.

v
EPRI Licensed Material
Summary

SUMMARY

The “Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program” project began in February, 1991. Its
primary goal was to demonstrate that the availability and performance of fossil-fired
power generation equipment could be significantly improved through the
implementation of formalized Cycle Chemistry Improvement Programs (CCIP).
Utilities were solicited to participate as hosts for this effort with the understanding that
the demonstration project would be firmly based on the use of state-of-the-art
programmatic and technical information presented in EPRI technical reports. Nine
Utilities participated in the demonstration project to its completion.

The focus of the EPRI CCIP demonstration project was to provide the Utilities with
knowledge on the essential programmatic features of a formalized corporate/plant
chemistry program, and guidance and/or state-of-the-art direction on how to do the
following:

• develop a management supported cycle chemistry program,

• develop and/or implement optimum chemistries for each unit,

• develop unit-specific limits, action levels, and operating procedures,

• decide on optimum sampling points, and specify and install the EPRI minimum
“core” level of instrumentation,

• decide on when or whether to chemically clean the boiler,

• illustrate benefits of condensate polishers and other cycle chemistry improvement


features and/or equipment,

• develop and/or apply technical and cost performance indices, and to

• reduce chemistry-related corrosion and/or deposition costs and demonstrate the


benefits of optimum unit-specific chemistries.

The technical basis for the formalized CCIPs being implemented by the

vii
EPRI Licensed Material
Summary

participating Utilities is numerous EPRI technical reports, many of which are


referenced in this document.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this demonstration project is to prove that cycle-chemistry-related


corrosion and/or deposition problems in fossil-fired power plants can be controlled
through the implementation of formalized CCIPs. This report describes formalized
cycle chemistry improvement programs implemented at nine Utilities. Each Utility’s
experience is documented in terms of its scope of participation, program progress
review, performance indices development, examples of programmatic and/or technical
developments, and concerns, problems and/or recommendations.

How to Use This Report

This report has been written to be used as a guide by any Utility to evaluate and/or
compare its fossil plant cycle chemistry practices to those used by the participating
Utilities in their formalized CCIP. It is suggested that the reader first reviews the
structure and requirements of a formalized CCIP described in Section 1. In Section 2,
the reader is presented with a synopsis of significant programmatic and technical
developments and, where provided by the participating Utilities, their justification in
terms of costs and/or benefits. For additional information on any particular
development, the reader is referred to the appropriate Utility Result in Appendix A, to
Use of Steam Path Audits in Appendix B, or to Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry
Instrumentation in Appendix C.

Outline

This report is divided into two major sections and three appendixes. The contents of
each are described below.

Section 1 - Overview of a Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

Section 1 generally describes the objective and scope of the EPRI Cycle Chemistry
Improvement Program demonstration project. Emphasis is on providing utilities with
knowledge on the essential programmatic features of a formalized corporate/plant
cycle chemistry improvement program, and guidance and/or state-of-the-art direction
on how to address all of the critical aspects of the program.

viii
EPRI Licensed Material
Summary

Section 2 - Program Results

Section 2 presents a synopsis of the more significant programmatic and technical


developments and, where provided by the participating Utilities, their justification in
terms of costs and/or benefits. The developments are grouped under five
programmatic features found to be an integral part of the more successful CCIPs. These
features are: active involvement by senior management, use of optimum chemistries
and process control equipment, maximum operator awareness and participation, a
strong maintenance commitment, and the use of technical and cost performance indices.

Appendix A - Utility Results

In Appendix A each Utility’s experience is documented in terms of its scope of


participation, program progress review, performance indices development, examples of
programmatic and technical developments with justifications (when provided), and
concerns, problems and/or recommendations.

Appendix B - Use of Steam Path Audits

In Appendix B steam path audits are generally described in terms of types of turbine
blade damage and deposition typically found, and how this cycle-chemistry-related
damage impacts turbine performance.

Appendix C - Evaluation & Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Appendix C provides guidance from participating Utilities, that engaged in extensive


upgrading of sampling systems and on-line analyzers, on the selection criteria for
utilities to use for judging candidate cycle chemistry instrumentation. Ten different
criteria, to be considered in the final selection, are discussed. It also includes a template
which may be used to develop instrument technical specifications for purchasing and
installing the minimum EPRI core” level of instrumentation.

Appendix D - Utility Philosophy Statements

Appendix D contains a copy of the Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement, taken
from the training manual TR- 103038, “Cycle Chemistry Corrosion and Deposition:
Correction, Prevention and Control”, and actual examples of CCIP philosophy
statements from a few of the participating Utilities.

ix
EPRI Licensed Material

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the project coordinators of the participating Utilities for their
support during this effort, and their data and information inputs to this final report.
They include: Mr. Bud Herre of Pennsylvania Power & Light, Mr. Phil Wigglesworth
and Mr. Dael Clarkson of Public Service Company of Colorado, Mr. Phil Morgan of
Ohio Edison Company, Mr Tony Lamonte and Mr. Billy Martin of Houston Light &
Power, Mr John James of Nebraska Public Power District, Mr. Charles Nerone of Illinois
Power Company, Mr. John Langley of Boston Edison Company, Mr. Carl Camper and
Mr. Mark Stevens of Montana Power Company, and Mr. Ed Dean of Western
Resources.

Appreciation is also extended to Kathleen Dimmer for her tireless effort in preparing
and assembling this document.

xi
EPRI Licensed Material
Contents

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 OVERVIEW OF THE CYCLE CHEMISTRY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............. 1-1


Introduction ..............................................................................................................1-1
RP2712-11, Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program” .............................................1-2
Program Focus .........................................................................................................1-2
Program Technical Basis. ........................................................................................1-3
Program Philosophy. ................................................................................................1-4
Program Implementation Methodology.....................................................................1-5
Program Training Manual .........................................................................................1-7

2 PROGRAM RESULTS............................................................................................. 2-1


Program Focus .........................................................................................................2-1
Program Participant Summary..................................................................................2-2
Project Developments. .............................................................................................2-3
Active Involvement by Senior Management .......................................................... 2-4
Use of Optimum Chemistries/Process Control Equipment.................................... 2-7
Operator Awareness, Participation and Training................................................... 2-8
A Strong Maintenance Commitment ..................................................................... 2-11
Use of Technical and Cost performance Indices................................................... 2-13
Summary ..................................................................................................................2-17

3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 3-1


Introduction............................................................................................................... 3-1
Improvements in Management or Administrative Practices...................................... 3-1
Improvements in Technology or Equipment Performance........................................ 3-4
Improvements in Operating Practices.......................................................................3-10
Improvements in Maintenance Practices..................................................................3-15

xiii
EPRI Licensed Material
Contents

Section Page

General Conclusions .............................................................................................. 3-16


Concerns ................................................................................................................ 3-17
Research Needs..................................................................................................... 3-22

Appendix A ................................................................................................................A-1

UTILITY RESULTS .....................................................................................................A-1


Coverage of Utility Cycle Chemistry Programs........................................................A-1
Individual Utility Results...........................................................................................A-2
Utility A .................................................................................................................A-2
Utility B .................................................................................................................A-11
Utility C.................................................................................................................A-24
Utility D.................................................................................................................A-34
Utility E .................................................................................................................A-46
Utility F .................................................................................................................A-56
Utility G.................................................................................................................A-73
Utility H.................................................................................................................A-85
Utility I .................................................................................................................A-97

Appendix B ................................................................................................................B-1

USE OF STEAM PATH AUDITS ................................................................................B-1


Introduction..............................................................................................................B-1
Sources of Turbine Efficiency Losses .....................................................................B-1
Impact of Turbine Deposits on Performance and Efficiency....................................B-4

Appendix C ................................................................................................................C-1

EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF CYCLE CHEMISTRY


INSTRUMENTATION..................................................................................................C-1
Introduction .............................................................................................................C-1
Development of Core” Chemistry parameters, Sample Points
and Monitoring Approaches ....................................................................................C-1
Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................C-4
Identification of Candidate Instruments ..................................................................C-9

xiv
EPRI Licensed Material
Contents

Section Page

In-Plant Assessments ........................................................................................... C-11


Recommendations to Management ...................................................................... C-11
Experience of CCIP Utilities .................................................................................. C-12
Specification of Cycle Chemistry Analyzers ......................................................... C-12
Quality Assurance and Control.............................................................................. C-18

Appendix D .............................................................................................................. D-1

UTILITY CCIP PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS ......................................................... D-1


Examples of Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements.................................................. D-1

xv
EPRI Licensed Material
Contents

TABLES

Table Page

1-1 “Core” CCIP Monitoring Parameters ................................................................. 1-9

2-1 EPRI Demonstration Project, Utility Group Summary........................................ 2-3

2-2 Examples of Cycle Chemistry-Related Direct Costs.......................................... 2-14

2-3 Examples of Cycle Chemistry-Related Indirect Costs ....................................... 2-15

xvii
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

1
OVERVIEW OF THE CYCLE CHEMISTRY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Introduction

Cycle chemistry problems in fossil plants are typically hidden within the statistics of
component forced outages, efficiency losses and premature end of useful component
life. Corrosion of components in U.S. utility steam generating plants is responsible for
an estimated 50% of forced outages and over three billion dollars a year in additional
operating and maintenance costs. Over ten percent of the product cost (electricity) is
added because of corrosion - the highest corrosion product cost of any U.S. industry.

Cycle chemistry problems in fossil plants are usually the direct result of repeat incidents
of (a) impurity ingress into the steam and/or water process cycle, (b) corrodent and/or
corrosion product generation in the process fluids or from equipment surfaces, (c)
corrodent and /or corrosion product transport around the water, steam and power
generation cycle, and (d) corrodent/corrosion product deposition on heat transfer and
power generation process equipment surfaces. Repeat (as opposed to random)
cycle-chemistry-influenced equipment availability and/or performance problems can
be defined as frequent, multiple failures or loss of equipment performance due to the
same corrosion mechanisms or corrosion product fouling or deposition problems.
Examples would include repeat boiler tube failures due to hydrogen damage, turbine
blade failures due to stress corrosion cracking, feedwater heater performance
degradation due to corrosion product formation and/or fouling, loss of generation
capacity due to turbine blade deposits, condenser tube leaks, etc.

In order to preclude or prevent corrosion of fossil-fired plant equipment, it becomes


readily apparent that the four corrosion-influencing technical factors, i.e contaminant
ingress, corrodent/corrosion product generation, transport and deposition, must be
controlled. It has been demonstrated in the U.S. and abroad that when cycle chemistry
is controlled and optimized, unit availability and/or performance losses are minimized.
Universally, where success has been achieved it has required a management
commitment and an organized team approach to cycle chemistry improvement.
Therefore, the only way to prevent repeat incidents of corrosion and/or deposition
equipment problems is to implement a formalized cycle chemistry improvement
program that addresses the root causes of corrosion, corrosion product generation,
1-1
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

transport and deposition on components in fossil plants. The balance of this report
describes the philosophy, resource requirements and examples of project results for
such programs being implemented at nine (9) utilities under EPRI research project
RP2712-11, “Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program.”

RP2712-11, “Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program”

The project began in February, 1991. Its primary goal was to demonstrate that the
availability and performance of fossil-fired power generation equipment can be
significantly improved through the implementation of formalized Cycle Chemistry
Improvement Programs (CCIP). Utilities were solicited to participate as hosts for this
effort with the understanding that the demonstration project would be firmly based on
the use of the technical information and philosophical concepts presented in EPRI
technical reports. Twelve utilities initially participated in the demonstration project, but
three withdrew in a short time due to changes in Corporate ownership and/or EPRI
membership affiliation. The following nine utilities participated in the demonstration
project to its completion:

Participating Utilities

• Public Service Company of Colorado • Ohio Edison Company

• Houston Lighting & Power • Illinois Power Company

• Boston Edison Company • Montana Power Company

• Pennsylvania Power & Light • Western Resources

• Nebraska Public Power District

Program Focus

The focus of the EPRI Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program (CCIP) was to provide
utilities with knowledge on the essential programmatic features of a formalized
corporate/plant chemistry program, and guidance and/or state-of-the-art direction on
how to do the following:

• develop a management supported cycle chemistry program,

• develop optimum chemistries for each unit,

• develop unit-specific limits, action levels, and operating procedures,

1-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

• decide on optimum sampling points,

• specify and install the EPRI minimum “core” level of instrumentation,

• decide on when or whether to chemically clean the boiler,

• illustrate benefits of condensate polishers and other expensive cycle chemistry


improvement features and/or equipment,

• develop and/or apply technical and cost performance indices, and to

• reduce chemistry-related corrosion and/or deposition costs and demonstrate the


benefits of optimum unit-specific chemistries.

The objective of this demonstration project was to show that the “how to” activities and
problems listed above can be performed by utility technical personnel, and managed
and/or controlled through the implementation of a formalized CCIP.

Program Technical Basis

The technical basis for the formalized programs being implemented by the participating
utilities is numerous EPRI technical reports and manuals on the root causes of fossil
plant component failures and performance degradation, where the primary problems
are caused by corrosion and/or corrosion product deposition. Major technical
information sources are: TR-103665, ”Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants:
Phosphate Treatment for Drum Units”; TR-102285, “Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for
Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment” ; TR-105041, “Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for
Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment”; TR-104007, “Sodium Hydroxide for Conditioning
the Boiler Water of Drum Type Boilers”; TR-104928, “Reference Manual for On-Line
Monitoring of Water Chemistry and Corrosion”; TR-104422, “Condensate Polishing
Guidelines”; TR-102401, “Guidelines for Chemical Cleaning of Fossil-Fueled Steam
Generating Equipment”; GS-6699, “Guidelines for Make-Up Water Treatment”;
TR-100196, “Development of a Steam Sampling System”; GS-6724, “Condition
Assessment Guidelines for Fossil Fuel Power Plant Components”; TR-103738, ”Turbine
Steam Chemistry and Corrosion”; CS-3891, “Survey of Steam Turbine Blade Failures”;
and CS-5856, “High Reliability Feedwater Heater Study”.

Philosophical concepts presented in these manuals and encompassed in the formalized


programs are:

• Control and surveillance actions based on: (a) monitoring and reporting of water
chemistry parameters deemed essential to early detection of chemical upsets; and (b)
periodic surveillance of accessible steam and waterside surfaces of plant equipment
for evidence of corrosion or deposition.

1-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

• Preventive actions based on: (a) measurement of technical and cost performance
indices of operating and maintenance “controllable” factors related to water
chemistry; (b) acceptance of a team approach to establish an effective CCIP which
provides permanent engineering/operation or maintenance solutions to water
chemistry problems; and (c) development of policies and procedures which promote
resolution of those “controllable” factors addressed by the team.

• Investigative and corrective actions based on: (a) clearly defining and documenting
all problems involving contaminant ingress, corrosion, corrosion product
generation, transport and deposition, for which chemistry is either a root cause or a
significant contributing factor; (b) assessment of equipment problems involving
cycle chemistry in terms of total cost (actual direct expenses plus indirect lost
availability, performance degradation or increased generation cost), including
historical perspective and long range implications; and (c) selection of appropriate
actions to restore unit integrity and minimize risk of problem recurrence.

Program Philosophy

To assist participating utilities in the implementation of a company-wide formalized


CCIP, two additional documents, to be used in conjunction with the technical reports,
were prepared. The first was a generic “Utility Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program
Philosophy Statement” that delineated a corporate philosophy, short- and long-term
goals, methodology, and conduct for a formalized program. This document was in full
support of the philosophical concepts presented in the EPRI cycle chemistry technical
guidelines indicated above and was to be used as a guide by project utilities to generate
in-house “program statements” that consider utility-specific philosophical and/or
organizational criteria. Upon approval and signature of a senior management
representative, the utility-specific program statements were to be used during
subsequent training sessions to communicate a corporate program commitment,
philosophy, goals, objectives, organization and resource requirements to all functional
group personnel.

Development and issuance of a program statement in the form of a corporate directive signed by
a senior management representative, is the most important step in implementing an effective
CCIP. This statement demonstrated corporate commitment and allows the team
functional groups to carry out those activities necessary to support corporate program
goals and directives. Typical examples from the generic corporate directive are:

• Every incident of quantifiable* corrodent/corrosion and /or deposition will be


defined and reported in terms of magnitude, historical trend and cost (MWhr or
Btu/KWhr loss), and a priority established for immediate or planned corrective
action.

1-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

* A unit is considered to have a quantifiable corrodent/corrosion and/or deposition problem whenever


there is a definable loss in availability or performance.

• All “critical” parameters relating to cycle chemistry will have established limits and
will be continuously monitored and alarmed.

• All modes of unit operation (i.e. startup, load increase and/or limit, planned or
immediate removal from service and layup) will be controlled by established
unit-specific cycle chemistry limits and will have action-oriented procedures to be
followed whenever the designated values cannot be attained.

• All units will be reviewed monthly using a set of cycle chemistry performance
indices specific to their operating mode, i.e. cycling or base load, such that unit
availability and/or performance parameters influenced by cycle chemistry
contaminant ingress, corrosion or corrosion product transport and/or deposition
can be monitored, reported and controlled.

• All units will be reviewed to determine, justify and install optimal cycle chemistry
and instrumentation.

• All scheduled major equipment inspections will include nondestructive testing of


areas experiencing either corrosion damage or excessive deposit buildup, such as
turbine blades, condenser tubing on the cooling water side, etc. In areas
experiencing damage or excessive deposition, root cause analysis will be
performed, and corrective, preventive and control actions will be taken to inhibit
forced outages due to these mechanisms.

The complete generic corporate directive, that was used for training of Utility
multifunctional personnel participating in the CCIP demonstration project, is described
in the training Manual1. A copy of the generic utility philosophy statement and example
program statements developed by a few participating Utilities are given in Appendix D.

Program Implementation Methodology

Prior to participation in the CCIP, some utilities already had some form of cycle
chemistry correction and/or prevention activities in place or in progress. What was
typically lacking at most were: (a) formal corporate direction and commitment in the
form of action-oriented directives, signed by a vice-president, focusing on maintenance ,
operation and engineering activities that have a direct influence on future repeat cycle
chemistry availability and performance problems; (b) training of corporate/plant
multidiscipline personnel in state-of-the-art cycle chemistry correction, prevention, and
control technology; (c) a multidiscipline team approach to solve cycle-chemistry-related
equipment problems; and (d) comprehensive reporting and trending of
cycle-chemistry-related events and data.

1-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

Using the program implementation material described previously, many of the


following near-term implementation activities were initiated by the participating
utilities:

• Establishment of a Corporate CCIP Team

A corporate CCIP team was formed, consisting of a corporate CCIP coordinator and
key management representatives from Technical Support, Fossil Plant Engineering,
and the Chemical Laboratory; each plant also formed a similar multifunctional team.
The corporate team is responsible for the overall conduct of the CCIP.

• Review and Development of Procedures for “Controllable” Cycle Chemistry


Parameters

The corporate CCIP team reviewed operating limits and chemistry-related operating
procedures with each plant team to ensure that they are achievable, up to date, and
consistent with the corporate CCIP philosophy.

• Review of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

The corporate and plant CCIP teams reviewed the cycle chemistry instrumentation
on each participating unit for conformance to EPRI CCIP minimum requirements
and additional recommendations.

• Development of Measurable Cycle Chemistry Performance Indices

The corporate CCIP team developed technical and cost performance indices to
accurately track cycle chemistry-related performance factors. These performance
indices provided cost and performance data for the prioritization of the problems,
justification of solution requiring funding, and evaluation of performance with
respect to technical and cost containment goals.

• Training of Personnel in Cycle Chemistry Analysis, Prevention and Control

The corporate and plant CCIP teams assigned a select number of personnel in each
of the functional groups to receive training in cycle chemistry. Training was
scheduled and coordinated by the CCIP team.

• Defining/Solving Cycle Chemistry Problems

Teams consisting of representatives from corporate and/or plant chemical,


technical, operation and maintenance functional groups were assigned to define,
prioritize and resolve each cycle chemistry problem. These teams were responsible
for determining the root cause of the cycle chemistry problem, performing a

1-6
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

cost/benefit analysis of corrective alternatives, and presenting interim and


long-term recommendations for management approval and implementation.

• Implementation of a Computer-Based Cycle Chemistry Monitoring and Reporting


System

Upon initiation of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program and the


establishment and use of cycle chemistry event reporting forms, provisions for
central processing and dissemination of information specific to the need of the
functional groups and management personnel was implemented by the CCIP
Corporate Committee. Implementation was usually through the procurement,
development and/or use of a computer-based Cycle Chemistry Monitoring and
Reporting System.

Program Training Manual

The second document developed, for training of utility personnel, was a Manual titled
“Cycle Chemistry Corrosion and Deposition: Correction, Prevention and Control”,
published in December 1993 as EPRI TR-103038. This Manual differs from other EPRI
cycle chemistry guidelines in that it describes programmatic rather than technical
requirements for a formalized Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program. Discussed in
the Manual are the seven critical Program requirements which are briefly described
below.

Formalized CCIP Requirements

• Corporate Directive and Support.

Formalized programs should originate through management executive policies


and/or directives, from which management philosophy, guidelines and goals are
established and communicated to all company personnel. Examples of
management philosophy statements specific to a formalized program were listed
previously under “Program Philosophy.” See Appendix D for a copy of the
complete Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement and actual examples of
philosophy statements from a few of the participating Utilities.

Management and support for a formalized program should be demonstrated by


delegation of authority and resources to conduct operation in support of Program
objectives. Examples of resource requirements recommended for a formalized
program are:

— training of plant engineering, operations and maintenance personnel in all


“need-to-know” aspects of cycle chemistry,

1-7
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

— assigning multidiscipline teams at or to specific plants to support personnel in


prioritizing and/or solving serious cycle chemistry equipment failure or
deposition problems and recommending permanent corrective/preventive
actions to management for approval and team implementation, and the

— establishment of a company-wide, centralized, computer-based, cycle-chemistry-


influenced event reporting and monitoring system.

• Establishment of Optimal Unit-Specific Cycle Chemistries, Limits, Action Levels and


Action-Oriented Operating Procedures.

The technical basis for establishing optimal unit-specific cycle chemistry was EPRI
report CS-4629, “Interim Consensus Guidelines on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry”.
This document was developed as a generic guide for application to a wide range of
U.S. fossil plant designs and operating modes. It was expected to be used by utility
personnel as a reference or roadmap in setting up their own optimal unit-specific
cycle chemistry, limits, action levels and operating procedures. It has since been
superseded by four state-of-the-art guidelines: “Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for
Fossil Plants: Phosphate Treatment for Drum Units”, TR-103665, “Cycle Chemistry
Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment”, TR-105041, “Cycle Chemistry
Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment”, TR-102285, and “Guidelines
on Cycle Chemistry for Flidized-Bed Combustion plants”, TR-102976.

• Installation of Optimal Cycle Chemistry Control Equipment and Instrumentation.

In order for operations personnel to effectively control and react to cycle chemistry
excursions or upsets, it is imperative that optimal cycle chemistry monitoring
instrumentation and process control equipment be installed. There are three critical
aspects of monitoring instrumentation for fossil plants: (1) the installed cycle
chemistry instrumentation is appropriate for the mode of unit operation and high
availability requirements; (2) the sampling methods and system design reflect
current state-of-the-art such that the chemical constituents of interest are transported
and conditioned for analysis; and (3) the sample frequency is sufficient to provide
early alert of any deviation outside of limits considered best practice. Minimum
instrumentation per/unit for project participation is listed under Table 1.1, “Core”
CCIP Monitoring Parameters. A template which utilities can use to develop
instrument technical specifications for purchasing and/or installing the minimum
EPRI “core” level of instrumentation is included in Appendix C, Evaluation and
Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation.

1-8
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

Table 1.1
“Core” CCIP Monitoring Parameters
(Minimum level of instruments for all plants/units)2

Parameter Measurement Locations Usage Frequency


Cation Conductivity CP Discharge On-Line C
Cation Conductivity Polisher Outlet and Economizer Inlet On-Line C
Cation Conductivity Hot Reheat Steam or Main Steam On-Line C
2
Cation Conductivity Blowdown or Downcomer On-Line C
pH (Drum Boilers) Blowdown or Downcomer On-Line C
Dissolved Oxygen CP Discharge and Economizer Inlet On-Line C
Sodium CP Discharge On-Line C
Sodium Polisher Outlet or Economizer Inlet On-Line C
Sodium Hot Reheat Steam or Main Steam On-Line C

C - Continuous or Semi-Continuous
Additional Monitoring or Diagnostic Parameters

Parameter Measurement Locations Usage Frequency


pH Economizer Inlet On-Line C
Specific Conductivity Economizer Inlet and Treated Makeup On-Line C
Silica Treated Makeup On-Line C
1 a b c
Phosphate Blowdown or Downcomer O or G C or S
2 d
Cloride Blowdown or Downcomer O or G C or D
e
Iron Economizer Inlet Grab W
Copper Economizer Inlet Grab W
Total Organic Carbon Condensate Pump Discharge Grab W
Air Inleakage Air Removal System O or G C or D
1 - Drum Boilers on Phosphate Treatment 2 - Drum Boilers on All-Volatile treatment
a - On-Line d - Grab Once/Shift
b - Grab e - Grab Once/Week
c - Grab Once/Shift

1-9
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

• Adoption and Use of Cost-Driven and Unit-Specific Technical Cycle Chemistry


Performance Indices.

Historically, expenditures for improvement of cycle chemistry, through the use of


control equipment such as condensate polishers or condenser steam spargers or the
installation of analyzers for continuous monitoring of sodium or dissolved oxygen,
have been very difficult to get approved by senior management. Reluctance to
approve was typically a result of an insufficient or poor cost/benefit analysis
where one or both sides of the equation were poorly documented or supported.
Therefore, an important prerequisite of a formalized cycle chemistry improvement program
is a comprehensive integrated accounting of cycle chemistry costs. This accounting
should include not only direct costs of cycle chemistry, but also indirect costs
influenced by cycle chemistry program practices such as unit availability,
performance and remaining life. Only when these costs are known and presented
as a cost-driven performance index does a utility get the full impact of total cycle
chemistry related costs.

Formalized cycle chemistry improvement programs also use a methodology to


monitor and/or measure the technical quality of the program from a unit-specific
and/or system perspective. Cycle chemistry is monitored through the use of
histograms that are parameter specific, i.e., focus on individual water or steam
chemistry parameters such as cation conductivity, dissolved oxygen, etc. Attention
then focuses on the percentage of time, for all operating modes, that the parameter
is within limits which are considered best practice.

• A Multidiscipline Approach to Problem Solving.

Activities associated with boiler tube failures due to cycle chemistry related
problems i. e. failure mechanism identification, root-cause analysis, verification,
and appropriate corrective and/or preventive action, are complex and usually
require the expertise of several technical/experience disciplines. Examples could
be: mechanism identification may require knowledge of the metallurgical
characteristics of boiler tube steels at high temperature over time; root cause
analysis may require knowledge of feedwater and boiler water chemistry, boiler
tube wall temperature, scale thickness, and heat flux; verification may require a
stress analysis of complex tube assemblies which are subjected to expansion
restraints; short-term, extensive water chemistry monitoring may require a change
in operation or maintenance practices; etc. Effective Cycle Chemistry Improvement
Programs recognize this complexity, and address it by mandating and supporting a
“team” rather than primarily a technical (chemist) approach to solving equipment
corrosion and/or deposition problems.

1-10
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

• Permanent Engineering Solutions.

In many cycle chemistry related operating and/or equipment problems, temporary


rather than permanent engineering solutions are used to solve the problem, with
the result that the remedy is a continuing and costly operating or maintenance
burden. A good example might be where a boiler requires chemical cleaning every
two instead of every ten years, because the generation, transport and deposition of
preboiler corrosion products are excessive. A better permanent solution might be to
justify and replace the copper alloy feedwater heaters with stainless steel and/or
install a condensate polisher. Other operating examples might be holding at a
lower pressure during startup due to high dissolved oxygen rather than installing a
steam sparger in the condenser; or holding at lower pressures during startup due
to high iron levels rather than installing a condensate polisher and a feedwater
recirculation line to preclude corrosion product transport into the boiler.

In many cases, cycle chemistry problems that impact plant availability and/or
performance can be eliminated by permanent engineering solutions based on
today’s state-of-the-art cycle chemistry control technology. A formalized cycle
chemistry improvement program with its team approach to problem solving and
permanent solutions satisfies this requirement.

• A Cycle Chemistry Recording and Monitoring System.

For continuous control of cycle chemistry, communication is the most critical


requirement in a formal cycle chemistry improvement program (CCIP). Correction,
prevention and control of cycle chemistry equipment problems require that every
functional group (management, engineering, operation and maintenance), charged
with this responsibility be continuously informed so that minor cycle chemistry
excursions do not become major cycle chemistry problems. Some of the ways to
ensure effective, reliable communication related to cycle chemistry is by use of a
cycle chemistry expert system or advisor3, or a computer-based, centrally-located,
company-wide reporting and monitoring system. For the latter to be successful, five
prerequisites should be satisfied.

Prerequisites for a CCIP Reporting and Monitoring System

(a) Personnel responsible for reporting cycle chemistry related problems are trained
in all aspects pertinent to reliable reporting of same, i.e., exact designation of
failure, damage or deposit locations, failure mechanism, probable root causes,
verification of root cause, type of repair, etc.

1-11
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

(b) Standard cycle chemistry event report forms should be used for all cycle
chemistry excursions or cycle-chemistry-influenced equipment failure, damage
or deposition problem. This form can be an integral part of an expert advisor.

(c) All cycle chemistry event reports should be processed through a central focal
point for continuous tracking and trending on a specific unit, plant and system
basis.

(d) Chemistry control reports should be issued monthly and semi-annually, and be
formatted specific to the “need-to-know” and “action” requirements of the team
functional groups.

(e) The key parameters (from the “core” instrumentation listed in Table 1.1) should
be alarmed in the control room.

In Summary

Implementation of a formalized cycle chemistry improvement program, incorporating


these seven critical program elements, should minimize cycle chemistry related
equipment problems, eliminate repeats, and significantly improve the availability of
fossil plants.

Also presented in the training manual are separate sections specific to each functional
group. Each section emphasizes activities that, if uncontrolled by the functional group,
can become root causes of common cycle chemistry failure or deposition problems.
Typical cycle chemistry problems, influenced by each functional group, are discussed
relative to probable root causes and specific preventive and control actions to be taken.
Prevention and control actions, via documented procedures in support of management
directives, are also recommended.

Individual Utility summaries include the scope of participation, progress in terms of


changes in chemistry, chemistry control processes, operations or maintenance practices
and, where provided, the justification for cycle chemistry improvements and the
financial benefits derived from same. These are presented in Appendix A, Utility
Results.

An overall project summary (i.e. the combined inputs from all participating utilities) of
significant accomplishments/results is presented in Section 2, Program Results.

1-12
EPRI Licensed Material
Overview of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program

References

1. Cycle Chemistry Corrosion and Deposition: Correction, Prevention and Control. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-103038. Final Report Dec. 1993.

2. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment. Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-105041. Final Report April 1996.

3. EPRI Cycle Chemistry Advisor - Chem Expert, Phase I Report - to be issued in early
1997.

1-13
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

2
PROGRAM RESULTS

Program Focus

As mentioned in Section 1, the focus of the EPRI Cycle Chemistry Improvement


Program was to provide utilities with knowledge on the essential programmatic
features of a formalized corporate/plant chemistry program, and guidance and/or
state-of-the-art direction on how to do the following:

• develop a management supported cycle chemistry program,

• develop optimum chemistries for each unit,

• develop unit-specific limits, action levels, and operating procedures,

• decide on optimum sampling points,

• specify and install the minimum EPRI core” level of instrumentation,

• decide on when/whether to chemically clean the boiler,

• illustrate benefits of condensate polishers and other expensive cycle chemistry


improvement features and/or equipment,

• develop and apply technical and cost performance indices, and to

• reduce chemistry-related corrosion and deposition costs and demonstrate the


benefits of optimum unit-specific chemistries.

The intent of this section is to present a synopsis of the more significant programmatic
and technical developments and, where provided by the participating Utilities, their
justifications in terms of cost and benefits. The developments are grouped under five
programmatic features found to be an integral part of the more successful formalized
CCIPs:

2-1
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

• active involvement of senior management as evidenced by specific program direction


and allocation of necessary financial and/or personnel resources,

• use of optimum chemistries and process control equipment through site-specific


application of state-of-the-art technical guidelines, testing, problem solving and
good engineering judgment,

• maximum operator awareness and participation through the installation of “core


parameter” instrumentation, the establishment of process limits, alarms, action
levels and operating procedures to address same in a timely manner, and training in
site-specific cycle chemistry basics and common upset conditions, such that the unit
can be quickly brought to a non-damaging process condition by the operator, when
on-site chemistry support personnel are not available or are being notified,

• a strong maintenance commitment through high priority service and quick response to,
and correction of, cycle-chemistry-related generation or process control equipment
and instrumentation reliability or accuracy problems, and

• use of technical and cost performance indices for exposing cycle chemistry-related
problems for prompt attention, problem solving and implementation of permanent
solutions by corporate/plant multidiscipline team personnel.

Program Participant Summary

As mentioned in Section 1, twelve utilities were initially chosen by EPRI to participate


in this demonstration project; but, due to changes in Corporate ownership and/or EPRI
membership affiliation, three withdrew in the early stages of the project. The profile
and unit characteristics of the nine remaining Utilities are described in Table 2.1, “EPRI
CCIP Demonstration Project, Utility Participation Summary”. It is suggested that other
utilities review the table for similar plant/unit characteristics and/or chemistries, and
then read the appropriate utility summary in Appendix A.

When one looks at this table as one large utility generating system, it includes the
following: (a) 35 fossil plants, 95 units totaling 34,200 MW, (b) 75 drum and 20 once-
through boilers with operating pressures ranging from 925 psi to supercritical, (c) cycle
chemistries including all-volatile treatment (AVT), congruent phosphate treatment
(CPT), equilibrium phosphate treatment (EPT), and oxygenated treatment (OT), and
(d) 42 condensate polishers, which are deep-bed and Powdex and used primarily for
startup or power generation service. In light of this diverse mixture of generating units,
it is likely that other utilities have experienced or will be experiencing the same
equipment corrosion and/or deposition problems as the participating Utilities, and will
benefit from the programmatic and or technical developments brought about by EPRI’s
CCIP demonstration project.

2-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

Table 2.1
EPRI CCIP Demonstration Project, Utility Group Summary

Utility Utility Profile Unit Characteristics

Entry Plants/ Total Boilers Pressure(psig) Chemistry(1) Condensate


(3)
Year Units MW Polishers
A 1992 5/16 5696 Drum - 13 925-2700 CPT/AVT 2 Units
(2)
O-T -3 SuperCrit. OT 3 Units

B 1993 2/6 1751 Drum - 4 1900 - 2400 PO4 1 Unit


O-T - 2 2400 AVT/OT(4) 2 Units

C 1991 8/18 2940 Drum - 18 1100 - 2500 EPT None

D 1992 2/10 4580 Drum - 4 2570 EPT None


O-T - 6 SuperCrit. - 1 OT 1 Unit
SubCrit. - 5 OT 5 Units

E 1991 1/2 1260 Drum - 2 2700 EPT 2 Units

F 1993 2/4 653 Drum - 4 1800 - 2600 CPT None

G 1993 1/4 2222 Drum - 4 2610 - 2645 EPT 4 Units

H 1991 5/10 3095 Drum - 8 1500 - 2400 CPT 1 Unit


O-T - 2 2400 AVT 2 Units

I 1992 9/25 12,005 Drum - 18 1800 - 2800 CPT/AVT 12 Units


O-T - 7 SuperCrit. AVT/OT 7 Units

Totals 35/95 34,202 Drum - 75 42 Units


O-T - 20

(1) AVT = All-Volatile Treatment (3) Polishers on some drum units


EPT = Equilibrium Phosphate Treatment are used mainly for startups.
OT = Oxygenated Water Treatment (4) Conversion from AVT to OT
CPT = Congruent Phosphate Treatment in 1995-1996
(2) O-T= Once-Through

Project Developments

The following is a listing of the more significant programmatic, technical, and/or


administrative developments by the utilities that participated in EPRI’s CCIP
demonstration project. It is recognized that many utilities are most likely already using
some of these developments in their current operating, maintenance or administrative
practices to minimize the costs of cycle chemistry corrosion and/or deposition

2-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

problems. It was also recognized during this demonstration project, that no one
participating utility was aware of or using many of the improvements developed in this
project for getting control of and reducing cycle-chemistry-related operating costs. It is
therefore, the intent of this section to bring all of these cost/beneficial, low risk, proven
programmatic and/or technical improvements together under the headings listed
above, such that they can be considered by any utility as potential candidates for
improving their own cycle chemistry technical and/or cost performance. Discussion of
each item will include a short description of the cycle-chemistry-related situation in
terms of its technical or performance difficulty, i.e. high operating cost, equipment
availability loss or performance degradation, etc., what technical, operational,
maintenance, and/or administrative improvement was developed to address it and,
where provided, how this improvement was justified. Each item will also be cross
referenced to its utility developer or user in Appendix A. Two other useful cycle-
chemistry-related developments or methodologies are also more fully described in
Appendix B,” Use of Steam Path Audits”, and Appendix C, “Evaluation and Selection
of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation”.

Active Involvement by Senior Management

Clear evidence of active involvement by senior management in the support,


implementation and conduct of a formalized CCIP, is the issuance of a “corporate
directive” that provides clear direction to corporate/plant management, technical,
operating and maintenance personnel on day-to-day activities that impact cycle
chemistry in fossil plants. All of the participating utilities customized and issued some
form of the generic CCIP corporate directive that is mentioned in Section 1. For actual
examples of Utility philosophy statements, see Appendix D.

Development and issuance of a program statement in the form of a corporate directive signed by
a senior management representative, is the most important step in implementing an effective
CCIP. This statement demonstrates corporate commitment and allows the team
functional groups to carry out day-to-day activities necessary to support program goals
and directives.

Operation personnel cannot actively participate in the CCIP if they do not have reliable
and accurate instrumentation that continuously monitors and alarms critical “core”
cycle chemistry parameters.

Maintenance personnel cannot actively participate in the CCIP if they are not directed to
give cycle chemistry-related power generation, process monitoring or process control
equipment and/or instrumentation problems high priority and quick response, and
sufficient resources to maintaining a rigorous proactive predictive and/or preventive
maintenance program.

2-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

Technical personnel cannot actively participate in the CCIP if they are not given sufficient
monetary resources, in-house team support or outside technical assistance when
necessary, to define and permanently solve, through procurement of new power
generation or chemical process analysis or control equipment, cycle chemistry corrosion
and/or deposition problems.

A few examples of management-approved resources, such that multidiscipline


personnel could actively participate in the utility’s CCIP, are listed below:

• Approved the expenditures of $7,075,000 for the installation of titanium tubes in the
condensers on three units, and $1,290,000 for the installation of automated makeup
water and new ammonia feed systems on three units, upgraded two demineralizers
and polisher controls, and the installation of new sodium analyzers on six units (see
Utility B in Appendix A).

Justification: These expenditures were justified by findings of a rigorous chemistry


monitoring program, that revealed the units inability to maintain many “core”
parameter within limits, together with large availability losses and high water
treatment operating and maintenance costs, primarily due to excessive condenser
cooling water ingress and poor deaeration efficiency.

• Approved the expenditure of $346,700 for 9 additional analyzers (2 phosphate,


2 sodium and 5 silica), 25 conductivity monitors and cells, 5 pH monitors and cells,
and other laboratory instruments. An additional $52,000 was also approved for
future installation of 2 recorder/data logger dedicated PC systems for data analysis
and/or trending (see Utility E in Appendix A).

Justification: The $346,000 expenditure was justified as part of its overall cycle
chemistry improvement program, where participation was on the basis of reducing
and/or avoiding future forced outages due to boiler tube failures or other
equipment problems associated with cycle chemistry. The funds approved for the 2
recorder/data logger dedicated systems were justified on the capability to generate
timely cycle chemistry status reports, using real time actual analyzer outputs into
the unit computer system rather than intermittent laboratory wet tests.

• Approved the expenditure of $55,000 for an outside contractor to develop site-


specific cycle chemistry training materials, and to conduct an additional 2-day on-
site training session, i.e. in addition to the 2-day programmatic session given by
EPRI’s project contractor, for an additional 250 operators. The course materials were
customized for each plant and included: basic chemistry, a step-by-step explanation
of the water treatment processes, a discussion of each chemistry limit and why it
was important, and a review of the CCIP program and the policies the Utility was
trying to implement. More than 100 suggestions were received from operating personnel
on how to improve chemistry operations, and operator morale was greatly improved

2-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

( see Utility A in Appendix A).

Justification: This expenditure was justified on the basis that plant operators are
rotated through all unit operating jobs including chemistry jobs. Further
complicating matters for plant management is the fact that there are no chemistry
departments at the plants, such that they have to rely heavily on the chemical
expertise of the operations staff. Utility A conducted a survey of the plant operators
and found that many wanted additional cycle chemistry training. Additional site-
specific cycle chemistry training was therefore considered essential for operators
participating in the program.

• Approved the expenditure of $200,000 for: an on-line ion chromatograph for


automatic sampling of boiler blowdown, condensate pump discharge, main steam,
hot reheat steam, two condensate tanks and demineralizer product; three isokinetic
sampling systems installed on main steam, hot reheat steam and downcomers; and
upgraded instrumentation - 7 cation conductivity and 4 pH recorders (see Utility C
In Appendix A).

Justification: The primary justification for these capital improvements was to assist technical
personnel in troubleshooting steam quality and turbine deposition problems on a 500 MW
unit, and to determine conclusively whether purchase of a full flow polisher was
warranted.

Other examples of active management involvement in CCIP direction implementation,


planning and/or problem solving are:

• Supports cycle chemistry meetings held at each plant on a quarterly basis, where
meeting attendance is open to corporate and station personnel. Management,
operations and technical disciplines are normally represented at the meetings and
actively participate in the resolution of problems involving station chemistry
programs and water treatment (see Utility B in Appendix A).

• Commitment and support for the CCIP was immediately established at all levels
within the Electric Production Department, largely as a result of an immediate
commitment by its Vice President. The Importance of a universal buy-in by all levels
cannot be overstressed; it is a necessary factor in obtaining the required capital
budget and in achieving program goals (see Utility C in Appendix A).

Use of Optimum Chemistries / Process Control Equipment

In today's competitive environment, it is important that utilities are aware of, and
willing to adopt, the use of optimum chemistries and/or process control methodologies
for their generating units. Use of these ensures generation facilities of the highest
achievable levels of equipment availability and performance.

2-6
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

The following are clear examples from the participating utilities of changing to or
installing optimum unit chemistry or process control equipment during the CCIP
demonstration project. Rational for these changes was primarily based upon
state-of-the-art technical information or worldwide experience revealed or obtained
through EPRI and/or its contractors:

• Approved the expenditure of approximately $4,600,000 for installing, where needed,


new on-line instrumentation and data acquisition systems at every fossil plant in the
system, to analyze and record “core” cycle chemistry parameter data on a
continuous basis, without requiring a formal engineering cost/benefit analysis (see Utility
I in Appendix A).

Justification: These expenditures were justified on the projected elimination of


existing, and the avoidance of future cycle chemistry-related boiler tube failures,
reductions in cycle chemistry-related turbine problems, and a reduced number and
frequency of boiler chemical cleanings.

• Eighteen (18) out of twenty (20) once-through supercritical and/or subcritical boilers
have been or are planned to be converted, from all-volatile treatment (AVT) to an
oxygenated treatment (OT).

Justification: Based upon savings estimated by other EPRI member Utilities that have
already converted similar units to OT, i.e. reductions in water treatment costs of
$120,000/unit/year, these conversions are estimated to result in a potential group
savings of $2,160,000/year.

• Twenty-eight (28) out of seventy-five (75) drum boilers have been converted to
equilibrium phosphate treatment (EPT) from congruent phosphate treatment (CPT)
using EPRI’s phosphate treatment guidelines for drum units3.

Justification: To minimize the probability of, or eliminate phosphate hideout,


hideout return and repeat boiler tube failures (BTF) due to acid phosphate corrosion.
This boiler tube failure mechanism is typically activated by use of mono- and/or
di-sodium phosphate to address boiler phosphate hideout problems.

• Installed a reverse osmosis (RO) application at a plant to replace two primary cation
and primary anion makeup demineralizers (see Utility D in Appendix A).

Justification: Justification for this conversion was based on economics. Operating


costs of makeup in terms of $/1000 gallons was very high with the present primary
cation/anion makeup demineralizers. Bids were put out on alternative reverse
osmosis system options, i.e. outright purchase of an RO system, a lease of an RO
system with an option to purchase, or a water purchase contract. The option to

2-7
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

purchase an RO system was selected because of lower projected $/1000 gallon


operating costs.

• It was determined that silica holds of some units during startup were a major
contributor to station megawatt hour loss. After comparing actual achievable silica
limits with EPRI Interim Consensus Guidelines, and reviewing actual silica startup
data and turbine deposition experience, silica limits on these units were reduced
only during startups.

Justification: These reductions resulted in one utility reducing its megawatt hour
losses from 160,000 to less than 30,000 in three years (see Utility C in Appendix A);
the other utility reduced its dollar losses attributed to silica upsets from a three year
average of $145,800 to zero (see Utility A in Appendix A). Both of these examples
illustrate the need to periodically review cycle chemistry parameter limits on a unit-
by-unit basis rather than simply adopting the same limits for all similar units.

Operator Awareness, Participation and Training

A formalized CCIP is unlikely to be very successful unless it is fully and actively


supported by operating personnel, whether operators are responsible for chemistry jobs
( i.e. regenerations, adding chemicals to control process “core” parameters, boiler
blowdowns, etc.) or not. For operating personnel to actively participate in the CCIP
they must have: (a) clear responsibility, authority, direction and training on how to
respond to cycle chemistry upsets in the form of operating orders and/or action-
oriented operating procedures, (b) limits, alarms and action levels for all critical core”
process parameters, and (c) continuous- monitoring, accurate and reliable
instrumentation.

The following are clear examples of the how the participating utilities raised the
awareness of their operating personnel, and demonstrated through “actions” the
importance of their role in the conduct of the Utility’s CCIP and, more importantly,
how they got them to actively participate and contribute to the success of the program:

• All participating utilities gave clear direction, responsibility and authority to


operating personnel, on their role in the Utility’s CCIP, through issuance of some
form of a corporate and/or plant operating directive that in essence stated that “all
modes of boiler operation will be controlled by established limits, action-levels and action-
oriented operating procedures”.

• All participating utilities established limits, alarms and action levels for the “core”
cycle chemistry parameters. Most have also developed or intend to provide action-
oriented operating procedures to be taken in response to upset conditions, and
continuous-monitoring, accurate and reliable instrumentation for same.

2-8
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

• At many of the participating utilities, plant operational control involving chemistry


includes the authority of unit operators to immediately remove a boiler from service
if its drum pH falls below 8. Because of CCIP training and support of management
at the highest level, operating personnel at these utilities can now protect the units
from a potentially catastrophic low pH hydrogen damage situation by removing
them from service in a timely manner.

• Many of the participating utilities also developed Cycle Chemistry Event Report Forms
that are filled out by operating personnel, describing any action level 2 or higher
cycle chemistry condition along with any associated equipment availability or
performance loss (see Utility D in Appendix A). The report is used to increase
operator awareness, to keep other plant and/or corporate CCIP “team” personnel
aware of major chemistry upsets, and to track cycle chemistry-related power
generation or process control equipment failures or instrumentation malfunction.
At one utility, the form not only tells what the problem was and what action was
taken but the completed form is then also posted in the control room so that all operators
know that this particular problem was taken seriously and responded to by the lab,
maintenance or plant management (see Utility F in Appendix A).

• The EPRI CCIP demonstration project includes only a generic two-day training
session covering programmatic as well as technical issues of a formalized CCIP. This
training, as described in Section 1, allows only 1/2 day of training for operating
personnel with emphasis on what the CCIP is all about, the role of the operators,
and what direction, knowledge, and action tools they need to actively participate.
One utility uses an operator rotation program whereby all operators are rotated
through all operations jobs in the plant including chemistry. This utility also does
not have a chemistry department at each plant; and relies heavily on the expertise of
the operations staff. The utility conducted surveys of their operators and found that many
of them wanted more training. Because of this it was deemed essential to include
expanded chemistry training for operators in the program (see Utility A in
Appendix A).

• Another utility’s plant CCIP team developed their own site-specific operator cycle
chemistry training program. It focused on what the operator needed to know to be
confident in using on-line chemistry analyzers to identify and respond to cycle chemistry
upset conditions. It was not intended to make chemists out of operators but to allow
the operators to make the initial response to a cycle chemistry upset condition.
Every plant operator attended a CCIP training session where parameter control
limits, action-levels and operating response procedures were presented. The
operators also worked on several case studies where they were asked to respond to
various chemistry upsets. An abbreviated version of the operator training was also
presented to the system dispatch supervisors to explain the Utility’s CCIP and the
plant operator’s role in same (see Utility F in Appendix A).

2-9
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

• At another plant, the utility noticed that the cost of hydrazine substitute exceeded
the amount expected by more than 50%. After talking to the operators about it during a
CCIP meeting, it was found that they were taking advantage of a side effect of
feeding the chemical, i.e. it makes the feedwater pH increase. By feeding excess
amounts of hydrazine substitute they were able to eliminate the need to handle
cyclohexylamine. The only problem was that the hydrazine substitute costs much
more that cyclohexylamine and does not protect the condensate part of the cycle.
Operators were not aware of this. When they were informed, the cost of the hydrazine
substitute dropped sharply to the anticipated level.

• Because of a utility’s success with additional operator CCIP training, the conversion
to oxygenated treatment at two plants was begun by conducting training classes for
all the operators, at which it was explained what was being done, why, and what
was expected to be achieved. Several good suggestions were received and fed into
the oxygen feed system design, and the operators were used to help write the new
operating procedures. When the conversion was made, the level of operator support
was very high. When the inevitable problems occurred, the operators were there to
resolve most of them, even some that had the engineers stumped! The conversion
was a big success (see Utility A in Appendix A).

• At another utility a variety of materials were prepared for use by operating


personnel, then combined with written procedures into manuals. Action levels for
each parameter were developed on colored charts. A key was also included on the
chart to generally describe the various action levels. In each water test station, a
framed chart was hung on the wall to provide an immediate reference for operating
personnel. The impact and effectiveness of these charts was greatly enhanced by the
use of color, i.e. in green, yellow, orange and red, to signify increasing levels of severity.
Also, chart titles, index tabs, and diagrams for each system were assigned a unique color,
creating a visual link between the various resources for that system. The result is an
attractive system of charts that is easy to interpret and use by operating personnel (see
Utility C in Appendix A).

• The results of one utility operator training program showed that operating
personnel had little awareness of the costs of chemicals or chemical operations. For
example, the operators were surprised to find that it cost close to $1,000 every time
they pushed the “regenerate” button on the makeup demineralizer. Feeding back
actual cost data to the operating personnel was found to increase enthusiasm and
program interest. Once aware of chemical or chemical operations costs, they were
willing to work to reduce them through the CCIP. This response alone made the
effort to determine cycle chemistry direct and/or indirect costs worthwhile by this
utility (see Utility A in Appendix A).

2-10
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

A Strong Maintenance Commitment

To stay ahead of cycle chemistry corrosion and/or deposition problems in fossil plants
requires a strong commitment by maintenance to support the utility’s CCIP. Chronic
contaminant ingress problems plague many fossil plants in the U.S. Successful CCIPs
use all available resources, in the most effective manner, to detect, minimize, control
and/or solve contaminant ingress problems, i.e. condenser leaks, air-inleakage,
demineralizer regeneration chemicals, sodium breaks, etc. The most cost effective way
to address most contaminant ingress situation is to: (1) utilize the eyes, ears and training
of operating personnel through limits, alarms and operating procedures to detect the
upset condition, isolate power generation equipment to a safe non-damaging process
condition, determine the source of contamination, isolate and correct same if possible,
and, when necessary, to notify the appropriate plant technical and/or maintenance
personnel, (2) when maintenance assistance is required to correct a contaminant ingress
problem, it should be given a “high” priority and responded to as quickly as possible, such that
equipment corrosion and/or deposition problems are minimized and (3) when the situation is
found to be repeat in nature, a technical solution and/or capital expenditure should be
sought.

The following are clear examples of the participating utilities making a strong visible
maintenance commitment in supporting their CCIP:

• Many of the participating utilities are using steam path audits to diagnose steam
turbine performance problems. A steam path audit provides a detailed listing of
performance losses from the many components in the steam turbine. The
performance losses contributed by cycle chemistry are those attributed to blade
deposits and component damage due to corrosion. The audit essentially pinpoints
exactly were these losses are occurring so that more detailed analyses can be made
to determine the root cause. The audit also provides a quantitative cost estimate of
each loss category which can be used to justify the modifications or equipment
upgrades that are necessary to eliminate the loss. For more information on steam
path audits see Appendix B.

In one utility’s plants, steam path audits are performed during each major
turbine overhaul by engineers within the organization. A recent audit conducted
revealed a loss due to deposits of approximately $3,000,000 per year. The cause
of the deposit was ultimately found to be due to malfunctioning filters in the
makeup demineralizer pretreatment systems. These filters had lost their
capacity to remove 0-40µm particles that adhered to the turbine blades causing
the deposit (see Utility D in Appendix A).

• At one utility the support of maintenance varied at each plant. One technique used
at a station was to stamp any maintenance work request that would improve chemistry
with a red "C". This would immediately call attention to the request so that it would

2-11
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

be given a high priority. The repair of on-line analyzers was improved at all plants.
Education of C&I personnel and support from their supervisor reduced the down
time for on-line instrumentation at all plants. Station H1 had a full time instrument
technician assigned to the plant chemist (see Utility D in Appendix A).

• At one utility all units are evaluated for sources of air inleakage using helium mass
spectroscopy. Leaks are identified, labeled, and photographed. Maintenance work
requests were always written up to ensure the repair process would be expedited. The
photographs were used to assist maintenance personnel in locating exactly what part needed
repair. Through meetings of the CCIP team, maintenance personnel indicated they
could not always tell by a written description what part needed repair. Therefore, in
some cases in the past, repairs could not always be made. Photographing and labeling
the leaks resolved this problem (see utility D in Appendix A).

• Some of the utilities participating in the EPRI CCIP, after evaluating their existing
on-line chemistry analyzers for reliability, maintainability and accuracy, replaced all
of their old, maintenance-intensive and/or inaccurate analyzers with state-of-the-art units.
The new analyzers were also field-proven prior to purchase circumventing later maintenance
problems. Another large utility also surveyed each of its plants to determine the
“core” instrumentation needs for its entire system. Along with this review, specific
types and models of instrumentation were also tested/examined for reliability,
accuracy, ease of maintenance and use to determine what instrumentation best filled
its needs. Also, once the needs were determined, the Utility had its purchasing department
initiate a single contract with a specific supplier to furnish all instrumentation for the project
(see Utility I in Appendix A). Also, a template which utilities can use to develop
instrument technical specifications for purchasing and/or installing the minimum
EPRI “core” level of instrumentation is included in Appendix C, Evaluation and
Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation.

Use Of Technical And Cost Performance Indices

For utilities to participate in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project they had to make a
commitment to develop both technical and cost performance indices, such that their
performance at the beginning and improvement at the end of the project could be
determined. The technical performance indices were to focus primarily on what percent
of the time, for all modes of operation, the participating plants and/or units were able
to maintain the core” parameters ( listed in Section 1 , Table 1.1, “Core” CCIP
Monitoring Parameters) within limits. The cost performance indices were to focus on
direct costs, such as regeneration or water treatment chemicals, resins, labor and
materials for boiler chemical cleanings, etc., and indirect costs, such as equipment
availability losses or performance degradation due to corrosion and/or deposition
problems. See Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 for examples of Cycle Chemistry-Related Direct
Costs, and Cycle Chemistry-Related Indirect Costs respectively. These examples were
selected from listings submitted by utilities during the demonstration project. These

2-12
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

listings do not show all possible direct or indirect cycle chemistry-related costs. The purpose of
these listings is for any utility to select items or add other items of its own, that make up
the bulk, say 80% or more, of its cycle chemistry-related costs to develop a cost
performance indices. The benefits of developing these indices are threefold, (1) they
force a utility to determine what their direct, indirect, and therefore total cycle
chemistry-related costs actually are, (2) what generation equipment, cycle chemistry
control processes, treatment chemicals or operating/maintenance activities are major
contributors to these costs, and (3) through cost/benefit analyses, what priorities and
resources can be justified to lower these costs through implementation of permanent
engineering, operation, maintenance or administrative solutions to the problems.

The following examples clearly illustrate substantial utility CCIP financial benefits
brought about by awareness of costly cycle-chemistry-related problems, through the
creation and/or use of technical and cost performance indices. These indices must also
be coupled with visible corporate direction and resources, and be given high priority,
prompt attention, problem solving, and implementation of permanent solutions by
corporate/plant CCIP team personnel.

• Utility A reduced its 1988-90 average/year lost generation costs, due to cycle
chemistry problems, from $1,664,111 to an average/year of $398,715 for the 1992-94
period, saving $1,265,396/yr. These savings were due primarily to reducing boiler
tube failures due to waterwall internal corrosion problems (from $917,000 to
$105,000), and by changing the startup limits on silica on its older units (from
$145,800 to $0).

• Utility C reduced its annual water treatment costs from almost $2,500,000 to
$1,700,000 over the 1990-93 operating period through improvements in purchasing
practices (all treatment chemicals are open to competitive bidding), and better
operator awareness of and control of system chemistry.

• Utility D, through use of a steam path audit during a major turbine outage,
identified blade deposits that resulted in lost generation and/or performance
degradation that totaled $3,000,000/yr. The deposit was ultimately found to be due
to malfunctioning filters in the make-up demineralizer’s pretreatment systems (for
more on steam path audits see Appendix B).

2-13
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

Table 2-2
Examples of Cycle Chemistry-Related Direct Costs

Indirect Cost Item Cost - $/Yr.


a
Corporate/Plant Chemical Staffing $2,565,000
b
Operator Chemistry Support (Labor) 440,000

Chemistry Equipment and Materials 410,000

Boiler/Feedwater Treatment Chemicals 64,000

Cooling Water Treatment Chemicals 1,200,000

RO/DI Service Contracts 135,000

Regeneration Chemicals 110,000

Emergency DI Water Lease 430,000

Raw Water Treatment Chemicals 500,000


c
Boiler Chemical Cleanings (Labor & Mat’l.) 175,000

Boiler Layup Chemical Treatment 15,000

Polisher / Demineralizer Resins 96,000

Total Cycle Chemistry Direct Costs $6,140,000

(a) Chemical supervisors, chemists and/or technicians.


(b) For analyses or regenerations.
(c) Does not include outage time.

2-14
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

Table 2-3
Examples of Cycle Chemistry-Related Indirect Costs

Indirect Cost Item Cost - $/Yr.

Availability Losses
a
Boiler Tube Failures $2,500,000
• Condenser Tube Leaks 250,000
• Loading Holds for Silica 1,250,000
• Turbine Blade or Disc Failures 826,000
b
Boiler Chemical Cleanings 250,000
c
Load Limiting 50,000
d
Forced Shutdowns 175,000

Efficiency Losses
• Turbine Blade Deposits 474,240
• Condenser Fouling 150,000
e
Feedwater Heater Fouling 70,000
• Boiler Blowdowns 900,000

Loss of Component Life


• Major Waterwall Tubing Replacement 500,000

• Economizer Replacement 500,000

• Reheater/Superheater Replacement 2,000,000

• Feedwater Heater Replacement 1,800,000

• Premature Condenser Retubing 300,000

Total Cycle Chemistry Indirect Costs $11,995,240

(a) Where the failure mechanism is related to cycle chemistry.


(b) Outage time required for the cleanings.
(c) Where load is being limited due to a cycle chemistry excursion or condition, i.e.
contaminated feedwater from a condenser leak or low pH.
(d) Where the shutdown was necessary because of low pH.
(e) Boiler feedpump power and feedwater heater heat transfer losses.

2-15
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

• Utility E used to have a lot of condenser leaks at a major fossil station resulting in
many lost MWhrs. As a solution they now perform hydros of the condensers at each
major unit outage opportunity, supplemented with periodic eddy current testing.
Since the station has started this practice, they have reduced the frequency of
condenser leaks from 15 over a three year period, to 2 small leaks in the last two
years. The same plant was also having serious air in-leakage problems, operating in
the 20 to 30 cfs range. This was the cause of many cycle chemistry-related equipment
problems, due to a very high level of preboiler corrosion product generation,
transport and deposition in the boiler. The units experienced boiler chemical
cleanings every three years, heavy crud loading delays on startups, boiler tube
failures due to heavy waterside deposits and hydrogen damage, and replacement of
feedwater heaters after only 17 years of service. The air in-leakage problem was
solved by the plant working with engineering personnel. Solution was due to a
combination of engineering, operations, and maintenance fixes. Solutions to
equipment-related corrosion and/or deposition problems due to the condenser
leakage and the air in-leakage problems, are generating avoided repeat cost savings
of $1,152,000/yr.

• Utility H installed a new accounting system to more closely monitor cycle


chemistry-related direct and indirect costs. Presently, its best numbers relate to
boiler chemical cleanings. The CCIP program, through the use of EPRI chemical
cleaning guidelines2, allows for a more scientific determination of when boilers
should be chemically cleaned. The result of Utility H using this approach permitted
two boilers to have their chemical cleaning frequency extended from every 2 to over
4 years. It is expected that this period will increase. The savings based on a four year
cleaning cycle equate to $240,000/yr. When one includes an additional availability
loss of three days for each chemical cleaning per boiler, and a fuel transfer cost of
about $1,000,000/yr/% availability loss, the total savings could approach
$2,240,000/yr.

• Through the use of cost performance indices, Utility I has documented the following
cycle chemistry improvements: (a) reduced the number of cycle chemistry-related
boiler tube failures from 52 in 1992 to 4 in 1995, saving approximately $125,000 in
boiler maintenance and $63,000 in lost generation costs, (b) reduced turbine losses
due to cycle chemistry-related corrosion and/or deposition problems from
$3,020,000 in 1992 to $2,200,000 in 1995 for a savings of $820,000, (c) reduced their
number of chemical cleanings from 23 in 1992 to 8 in 1995, resulted in an additional
savings of $117,000 (these cost reductions will continue to increase as the number of
supercritical boilers are converted to OT), and (d) through the use of an improved
purchasing strategy was able to maximize its purchasing leverage” and reduce its costs
for cycle chemistry-related bulk chemicals (acid, caustic, etc.), chemicals with services
(water treatment-cooling towers, condensers,etc.) and chemicals with services and
equipment (boiler chemical cleanings, reverse osmosis, etc.) from $11,500,000 to
$9,700,000 annually or by $1,800,000/yr.

2-16
EPRI Licensed Material
Program Results

Success of formalized CCIPs usually relies on capital, operation or maintenance


expenditures for solving serious cycle chemistry-related generation equipment
availability loss and/or performance degradation problems. Historically, obtaining
these resources has always been very difficult. Reluctance to approve by senior
management was typically a result of an insufficient or poor cost/benefit analysis,
where one or both sides of the equation were poorly documented or supported. As
mentioned in Section 1, the real total value of cycle chemistry-related costs is usually
masked within statistics of component forced outages, efficiency losses and premature
end-of-useful-life. It is only through the use of chemistry-specific technical and/or cost
performance indices that cycle chemistry-related problems can be exposed and real
cost/benefit analysis of potential cycle chemistry improvements can be performed.

Summary

The examples presented in this section clearly support the value of the five
programmatic features found to be an integral part of the more successful utility CCIPs,
i.e. active involvement by senior management; the use of optimum chemistries and
process control equipment; maximum operator awareness, participation and training; a
strong commitment by maintenance; and the use of technical and cost performance
indices for awareness of and permanent solutions to plant/unit cycle chemistry
problems. They also demonstrate how many plant/unit cycle chemistry corrosion
and/or deposition costs, accepted by many Utilities as a given , can be substantially
reduced and controlled through use of state-of-the-art technology and improved
management, technical, operation, maintenance and administrative practices.

References

1. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment. Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-102285. Final Report, Dec. 1994.
2. Guidelines for Chemical Cleaning of Fossil-Fueled Steam Generating Equipment. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-10240. Final Report, June 1993.

3. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Phosphate Treatment for Drum Units.
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-103665. Final Report,
Dec. 1994.

4. Boiler Tube Failure Reduction Program. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA. EPRI GS-7454. Final Report, August 1991.

2-17
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

Section 2 presented a synopsis of the more significant programmatic and technical


developments and, where provided by the participating Utilities, their justification in
terms of reduced costs or benefits. The intent of this section is to summarize the
achievements and estimated or actual cost savings (where provided by the participating
Utility) for all of the Utilities, that reduced direct or indirect cycle chemistry costs by
improvements in management or administrative policies, technology or equipment
performance, operating, and maintenance practices. General conclusions, Utility
concerns and research recommendations are also presented at the end of section.

Improvements in Management or Administrative

The following improvements in management or administrative procedures were made


by the Utilities during this four-year, technology-transfer demonstration project:

• All of the participating Utilities developed some form of program philosophy


statement or corporate directive. The development and issuance of these statements,
in the form of a corporate directive and signed by a senior management
representative, is the single most important step in implementing an effective CCIP.
Issuance of such a formalized document is considered to be an improved
management procedure, for it demonstrates corporate commitment and allows the
corporate/plant functional groups to carry out those day-to-day activities necessary
to solve cycle chemistry problems and generate subsequent direct or indirect cost
savings.

To determine the indirect cycle chemistry-related cost of a failed component, Utility A


assigned a chemistry factor and an age factor to its replacement. The chemistry factor was a
simple estimation of the significance of chemistry in the failure mechanism which ended the life
of the subject component. The age factor is determined by subtracting the actual life of the
equipment being replaced from its original design life. In most cases the design life had to be
estimated. For example, hydrogen damage is considered to be a 100% chemistry-related
failure mechanism and, therefore, waterwall tube replacements due to hydrogen

3-1
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

damage are considered 100% due to chemistry, but only if there are no other active
damaging mechanisms. In this example, other mechanisms were active, such as fireside
corrosion, that had already used up 80% of the tubing’s design life, so an age factor of
20% was assigned. Multiplying the $3,125,000 cost of replacement waterwalls by both of
these factors, i.e. 100% x 20%, charges $625,000 of the total replacement costs to
chemistry.

• Commitment and support for Utility C’s CCIP was immediately established at all
levels of the Electrical Production management, largely as a result of an immediate
commitment from the vice-president The importance of a universal buy-in cannot be
overstressed; it is a necessary factor in achieving program goals and in obtaining the
necessary capital budget.

• Utility C realized substantial savings, in the years prior to this study, by opening all
plant chemical treatment programs to competitive bidding.

• Utility C developed a system of reports to graphically communicate two important


types of information to station management. First, there are graphs for each of the core
parameters for each unit, with emphasis on both current performance and recent
trends. The second type of information is management-related, for instance, percent
of time within limits or percent of analyses completed by operating personnel.

• At utility C, to facilitate reporting, data from each operator test station is transmitted
at the end of each month to a clerk. The data is transferred to a spread sheet program on
a personal computer and from there into a graphics package. Each chart presents the
control limits, or target range, for that parameter as a shaded area, plus the actual
data for the month. Each monthly report also contains a variety of overview charts,
such as percentage of tests within established limits and percentage of tests
completed. Trending is another important component of management reporting.

• Prior to participating in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project, Utility H was also an


active participant in EPRI’s Boiler Tube Failure (BTF) Reduction demonstration
project. Like the implementation of it’s formalized BTF Reduction Program, support
for its CCIP program started at the vice president and plant manager level. Commitment
from that level ensured that the CCIP would be supported as well as the BTF program has
been.

• At Utility H, new analyzers were field-proven prior to purchase. Coordination of the


analyzer evaluations through the CCIP allowed for some standardization of instrumentation
throughout the fossil plants. See Appendix C for how to develop state-of-the-art
specifications on the “core” instrumentation.

• At Utility H, two types of data management were developed to improve chemistry


control. The first is on-line data acquisition systems (DAS), which were installed on
several of the units. These systems provided plant personnel with real-time
3-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

information about unit chemistry. These systems could be monitored in the control
room, laboratory, and other designated areas of the plant. The systems also have
alarm capability for notification of chemistry out-of-control conditions. The alarm
function allowed for quick response to chemistry upsets. The data acquisition
systems also allow for trending of data to assist in diagnosing the cause of chemistry
excursions. The second type of chemistry data management is a monthly report that
displays the percent of time a given unit is in compliance with chemistry guidelines.
This report lists each sample point and the percent of time in control and in each
action level.

• Prior to selecting a supplier to fulfill its cycle chemistry instrumentation needs,


specific types and models of instrumentation were examined and tested for reliability,
accuracy, and ease of maintainability and use to determine what instrumentation best filled
its needs. Once this was determined, purchasing initiated a contract with a specific supplier
to furnish all instrumentation required for the project.

• To track the performance of each unit, Utility I created a “Steam Purity Performance
Index”. The proposed index was created and presented to plant management and
appropriate personnel for comments and possible revisions. The index is calculated
by taking the percentage of time within the target value range on the Steam Purity
Chemistry Control Report and multiplying it by the weighted value for that
parameter. If the parameter values are within the target value range 100% of the
time, the Steam Purity Performance Index (SPPI) score would be 100.

Example: For one month, a plant maintains all of its “core” cycle chemistry
parameters within their target value ranges for 100% of the time, with the exception
of dissolved oxygen for the CPD. During the month this parameter is within its
target value range only 85% of the time. To determine the impact of this on the
Plant’s SPPI for the month, you would multiply (1.00-0.85) or 0.15 by 2.5 (the CPD’s
weighted Value for dissolved oxygen) to get a reduction in the monthly SPPI of
0.375. This reduction in the plant’s cycle chemistry performance would then be
subtracted from 100% to give a plant SPPI for the month of 99.625.

Improvements in Technology or Equipment Performance

The following improvements in technology or equipment performance were also made


by the Utilities during this four-year demonstration project:

• At Utility A, operational experience and the results from limited boiler carryover
testing, using EPRI’s methodology described in Module 4 of the CCIP training
Manual, were used to set the “core” parameter limits for its 300 MVV or larger units.
For the units on which the “core” parameter limits were already being bettered or
not exceeded, no effort was made to reduce the limits. Utility A was not using these
tests to necessarily reduce unit parameter limits, if those limits suggested in the EPRI

3-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

guidelines were bettered, but to compare unit carryover levels, at higher than rated flow
rates, to those guaranteed by the boiler manufacturer at the maximum continuous rating
(MCR) as discussed in the EPRI guidelines, and to check the integrity of the drum liners.

• By changing from a modified congruent phosphate treatment used in the 1950’s, to a


standard congruent phosphate treatment, Utility B eliminated addition of sodium
sulfate and sodium sulfite, and reduced use of trisodium phosphate by 75 percent,
disodium phosphate by 75 percent and caustic flake by 100 percent.

• By retubing leaking condensers with Titanium and 90/10 Cu/Ni, Utility B was able
to:

• Reduce forced outages from condenser leaks and boiler tube failures (due to
under deposit corrosion) by 100%, i. e. from 4% to zero.

• Reduced wear and tear on chemical injection pumps and demineralizer


regeneration equipment. These reductions were primarily attributed to
improved cleanliness of the condensate and feedwater due to less blowdowns,
less need for makeup and, therefore, less regenerations.

• Reduced make-up demineralizer regeneration chemicals (sulfuric acid and


sodium hydroxide) by 50 percent and reduced make-up demineralizer resin
replacement by 50 percent.

• Decreased boiler chemical cleaning frequency from 2 to 4 years. This


improvement is primarily attributed to better control of cycle chemistry limits
resulting in less preboiler corrosion product generation, transport and deposition
of same in the boiler. All because of correcting condenser leaks and poor
deaeration problems.

• Reduced demineralized water production by 50 percent and reduced city water


and wastewater treatment costs.

• Improved heat rate by reducing boiler blowdown by 50% and hotwell


overboarding by 100%.

• Utility D expects to reduce regeneration costs, the frequency of chemical cleanings


and chemical cleaning waste removal charges by converting six once-through units
from all-volatile treatment (AVT) to oxygenated treatment (OT); annual savings are
estimated at $500,000.

• Utility D also expects to minimize the probability of boiler tube failures due to acid
phosphate corrosion because of boiler phosphate hideout and return problems, by
converting four high-pressure drum boilers from coordinated phosphate treatment
(CPT) to equilibrium phosphate treatment (EPT)*.

3-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• To lower operating costs for makeup, in terms of $/1000 gallons, Utility D installed
a reverse osmosis (RO) application to replace two primary cation and primary anion
makeup demineralizers. Bids were put out on alternative reverse osmosis system
options, i.e. outright purchase of an RO system, a lease of an RO system with an
option to purchase, or a water purchase contract. The lease with option to purchase
an RO system was selected because of lower projected $/1000 gallon operating
costs*.

• To avoid future outage costs due to turbine blade failures, experienced on one of
their large units due to sodium carryover in the main steam, Utility D installed
sodium analyzers on the condensate pump discharge and main steam sample
streams on all of the large units at one of their plants.

• To reduce labor costs, Utility D installed continuous hydrazine and phosphate


analyzers on four units at one plant. These continuous analyzers eliminated the
need for intermittent analysis by laboratory personnel, and justified a subsequent
reduction in laboratory staffing requirements*

*Utility D estimates the combined savings from these three items to be $130,000 to
$150,000 annually.

• In Utility D’s plants, steam path audits are performed during each major turbine
overhaul by engineers within the organization. A recent audit conducted on D1
Unit 2 revealed a loss due to deposits of approximately $3,000,000 per year. The
deposits were ultimately found to be due to malfunctioning filters in the makeup
demineralizer pretreatment systems. These filters had lost their capacity to remove
0-40,µm particles that adhered to the turbine blades causing the deposit.

• Utility E experienced three serious glycol leaks on the plant HVAC system that
provides condensate for make-up to a condensate storage tank. One leak was so bad
that it required that a unit be removed from service, drained and flushed before it
could be returned to service. Since the last experience, a glycol leak detection and
diversion system has been installed using cation and specific conductivity. In the summer
of 1995, Utility E got an added bonus from this detection system in that it detected a
leak in the heat exchanger for the chillers, dumped some bad water and provided
early warning to a potentially serious problem.

• Utility E has reduced its cycle chemistry direct-costs approximately $198,000


annually by changing from a Cold-Lime softener to a Reverse Osmosis System for
make-up to the DI Train in the fall of 1988. Plant acid and caustic costs, which were
running about $17,000/month, have not reached $17,000 since the conversion in the
fall of 1988, or after almost five years.

3-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• At Utility E, initial plant operation had one full-flow Powdex condensate polisher
for use on start-ups and shutdowns of either unit. Regeneration was with Ecodex, a
mixture of cation and anion resins, and cellulose. This was good for crud removal
during start-ups and shutdowns but not very effective for condenser leaks. Late in
1993, a second identical(selected for economy reasons) polisher was installed on
Unit E-2, with the additional feature of also being able to be valved to Unit E-1 when
necessary. The plant now had reserve polishing capability in case of a serious
condenser leak or heavy crud loading on start-ups.

• At Utility E, a plant was having serious air in-leakage problems, operating in the 20
to 30 cfs range. Plant personnel worked with their engineering department to solve
this problem. Solution was due to: (a) installation of some new valves, (b) checkout
and maintenance of the roto meters, (c) writing of a procedures manual by
engineering(i.e. on detection methodology, test locations, etc.), (d) the establishment
of an air in-leakage group that is involved in all aspects of air in-leakage problem
solving and personnel training, and(e) installation of a nitrogen-blanket system on the
condensate storage tanks of Unit E-2. Air in-leakage values have since decreased to
12-13 cfs on Unit E-1 and to zero cfs on Unit E-2.

• At Utility E, Unit E-2 arch panel required replacement at a cost of $750,000 after only
11 years of boiler operation. This premature replacement was because of boiler tube
failures and tubing damage due to hydrogen damage. Because of improved unit
chemistry, i.e. changing from a low phosphate(1-3 ppm) program to equilibrium
phosphate treatment (EPT), installation of PO4 analyzers, lower air in-leakage, better
chemical cleanings, improved operator awareness, etc., this boiler tube failure
problem and its subsequent premature arch panel replacement solution is not
expected to be repeated. This should result in at least 30 years life for the
replacement panel, therefore avoiding a future arch panel replacement at a cost of
$750,000 in only 11 years. This results in a future projected savings of $43,000/yr.

• Utility E experienced a serious corrosion problem on its Unit E-1 “B” String HP
feedwater heaters ( Admiralty Material), which had to be prematurely replaced at a
cost of $1,800,000. This replacement is scheduled for 1997, after only 17 years of
service. Because of improved cycle chemistry due to operator awareness and lower
preboiler corrosion due to lower levels of dissolved oxygen, the replacement
feedwater heaters are expected to last at least 30 years. This should result in future
projected savings of $46,000/yr. Also, there are fuel savings of $20,000/year if the
FW heaters can remain in service (based upon 12 additional outage days/year).

• In 1995, units at plant E of Utility E had only one tube leak in a waterwall view port
near the bottom of the leading edge of the finishing superheater. The failure
mechanism was hydrogen damage. The Outage lasted 198 hours. Lost generation
costs were not charged because a precipitator cleaning outage had been planned.
The cost to repair the leak was $6577. During 1990-1991 15 water-chemistry-related

3-6
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

(hydrogen damage) boiler tube failures were experienced on Units E-1 and E-2 at
repair and lost generation costs of $150,198 and $1,050,014 respectively. Because of
improvements in Plant E’s cycle chemistry and operating practices, EPRI estimated
that a plant availability improvement of 1.5%/yr is possible. This equates to a
projected annual savings of $890,000.

• Because of serious pre-boiler corrosion product generation, transport and deposition


in the boiler, Utility E experienced many boiler tube failures due to activation of
hydrogen damage. To prevent and minimize the probability of repeat BTF’s due to
hydrogen damage, the boilers were being chemically cleaned every three years at a
total cost of $1,756,000. These costs include cleaning labor and material and outage
charges. By improving cycle chemistry and operating practices, pre-boiler corrosion
product generation, transport and deposition has decreased such that the period
between chemical cleanings has been extended from three to four years resulting in
projected annual savings of $143,000.

• To detect low levels of sulphates and chlorides from condenser leaks, so future
turbine blade problems could be avoided, Utility G purchased an ion
chromatograph. This has been a useful tool, especially in the event of a condenser
tube leak. Contamination can be detected much sooner. Data is being accumulated
at this time. It is planned to include a control chart, limits, and out-of-range
responses for sulfate and chloride levels in the future.

• To help in reducing its copper corrosion problem, Utility G placing all four units at
its plant on equilibrium phosphate treatment (EPT) for better control of pH during
startups and load changes.

• Utility G also monitors copper concentrations, and a control chart is used during
startups for two of the units. This change was implemented in an attempt to reduce
copper deposition on high pressure turbine components.

• Review of the feedwater/boiler blowdown metals concentrations and four turbine


steam path audits during the past 5 years at Utility G, has resulted in a decision to
convert all units from hydroquinone back to hydrazine. This decision was based on
finding heavier copper deposits on the high pressure turbine stages during the
audits since making the change to hydroquinone. The deposits were also found to
be of metallic rather than of the copper oxide form.

• For the past five years, Utility G has conducted turbine steam path audits (see
Appendix B) on two 333 MW Units. This information was the most useful tool in helping
to determine that copper deposition was getting worse on high pressure components. For
the minimal cost of the audit it proves to be extremely useful in determining
efficiency losses. A 50% reduction in high pressure turbine deposits can easily
translate to $250,000/yr for a 333 MVV Unit.

3-7
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• At Utility H, copper alloy low- and high-pressure feedwater heaters were being
replaced with all ferrous systems to get rid of copper corrosion transport and
deposition problems. Changing to ferrous feedwater heaters was due to a history of
no waterside deposit-related boiler tube failures on non-copper units, and projected
reductions in chemical cleaning costs (shorter cleaning outage time required) by not
having to perform a copper removal stage.

• At Utility H, nitrogen blanketing was also installed on boiler drums, feedwater and
deaerating heaters to enhance operations ability to protect the units during cyclical
operation.

• At utility H, the CCIP program, through the use of EPRI chemical cleaning
guidelines for fossil plants, allowed for a more scientific determination of when
boilers should be chemically cleaned. Prior to having a CCIP, Utility H had a time-
based chemical cleaning approach. This resulted in chemical cleanings every two
years regardless of actual boiler cleanliness. Since changing to a boiler cleanliness
based criteria, i.e. waterside deposit weights, the chemical-clean frequency on two
units was extended from two years to over four. It is presently not known how long
the time between cleaning will be because the latest tube section still has low deposit
weights. The cost for one cleaning is about $60,000. Therefore, if the cleaning is
extended from two years to six years, that equates to about $240,000. If the
additional availability of about three days for each is included, this is equal to about
1-2% for a given one year equated availability. If the unit was needed, the extra time
gained by increasing the availability, and about $1,000,000/year/% is used for
availability costs, then total savings could approach $2,240,000.

• In 1992, Utility I’s CCIP (its Steam Purity Monitoring Program) corporate team
justified the installation of new instrumentation at each station (to satisfy the “core”
requirements of the EPRI CCIP demonstration project), and data acquisition systems
for each unit (for taking continuous on-line cycle chemistry parametric data for
incorporation into unit technical performance indices), primarily on the projected
elimination of existing, and the avoidance of future cycle chemistry-related boiler
tube failures, reductions in cycle chemistry-related turbine problems, and the
reduced frequency and number of boiler chemical cleanings.

• At Utility I, limited carryover testing on chlorides, following the EPRI methodology


described in the CCIP training Manual, is also in progress on some large drum units
for possible relaxation of boiler water targeted normal values.

• Since the beginning of the CCIP at Utility I, better control of water chemistry has
resulted in the following cost savings:

• The number of boiler tube failures related to water chemistry has been reduced
from 52 in 1992 (when the program started), to a low of 4 in 1995 (all figures are

3-8
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

based upon data as of October 4,1995). In 1992, the number of water chemistry-
related boiler tube failures was 39% of the overall number of boiler tube failures.
In 1995, the number of chemistry related boiler tube failures was only 6.5% of the
overall number of boiler tube failures. The reduction in number of water-
chemistry-related tube failures equates to a savings of $125,000 in boiler
maintenance costs and $62,300 in lost generation cost.

• Chemistry-related damage to turbines at Utility I was estimated to be


$2.2 million in 1995, which is a reduction of $820,000 from 1992.

• Also, as a result of better control of water chemistry, extending length of time


between maintenance outages, and conversion of some supercritical units to
oxygenated treatment, Utility I has been able to reduce the number of chemical
cleanings from 23 in 1992, to 8 in 1995. This has resulted in savings of $117,000.
The number of boiler cleanings and costs of boiler water treatment will continue
to be reduced as more supercritical units are converted from conventional AVT
to oxygenated treatment.

• At Utility I, reduction in water treatment costs can also be attributed to


implementing two additional cycle chemistry improvement programs:

• By the conversion of supercritical units to oxygenated treatment, Utility I expects


to achieve similar savings estimated by the EPRI sponsored utilities that
converted units to oxygenated water treatment. This saving was approximately
$120,000/unit/year, which equates to an estimated $960,000/year once all
supercritical units have been converted.

• In May 1992, Utility I began a study entitled Chemical Initiative, the purpose of
which was to determine the most cost effective chemical purchasing strategy to
reduce the cost of chemicals used in its generating stations. This program
resulted in maximizing its leverage in the procurement of bulk chemicals
(i.e. caustic, sulfuric acid, crushed limestone, etc.), chemicals with services
(i.e. water treatment-cooling towers, condensers, etc.) and chemicals with services
and equipment (i.e. reverse osmosis and supercritical boiler chemical cleanings). It
resulted in reducing annual costs from $11.5 million to $9.7 million, or a savings
of $1.8 million annually.

• Utility I is very pleased with the cost/benefits resulting primarily from the three
cycle chemistry improvement programs previously described, i.e. the Steam Purity
Monitoring, Oxygenated Treatment, and the Chemical Initiative Programs. At an
implementation cost of approximately $4,300,000 over three year period, 1992-1994,
Utility I realized savings of $3,770,000 in 1995 alone. Problems associated with
implementation of the three programs were considered minor.

3-9
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

Improvements in Operating Practices

The following improvements in operating practices were also made by the Utilities
participating in this four-year demonstration project:

• Utility A was taking load losses worth more than $75,000 per year by applying the
EPRI limits for boiler water silica during startup. It is doubtful that the turbine
deposits prevented (if any, for it was speculated that most of the deposits would
wash off during startup and shutdown) would have cost that much money. Relaxed
limits were created for application only during startup. These pressure holds for silica
control during startup were eliminated while finding no noticeable increase in turbine silica
deposits. This is a good example of the need to review limits on a case-by-case basis rather
than to merely copy them from the EPRI manual.

• Utility A uses an operator rotation program whereby all of the operators are rotated
through all of the operating jobs in the plant. The chemistry jobs are included in the
rotation program. Further complicating things, is the fact that Utility A does not
have a chemistry department at each plant and relies heavily on the expertise of the
operations staff. Utility A conducted surveys of their operators and found that
many of them wanted more training. Because of this it was deemed essential to
include an expanded chemistry training program for the operators in the program.
These courses were a big success. Feedback indicated that more than 90% of the
approximately 250 operators thought the course was worthwhile. More than 80%
rated it “very good” or “excellent” More than 100 suggestions were received on how to
improve chemistry operation, and operator morale was greatly increased.

• At one Utility A plant, makeup demineralizer regeneration wastes are not


neutralized prior to entering the waste treatment plant, which was retrofit many
years after the plant was built. The acid and caustic regeneration steps proceed
simultaneously and the amounts of acid and caustic used theoretically neutralize
each other. But the procedure calls for a 40 minute acid regeneration and a 70
minute caustic regeneration. The waste treatment plant pH neutralization tank sees
influent water with a pH that is too low for 40 minutes and too high for 30 minutes.
It feeds neutralization chemicals accordingly. At one of the regular meetings of the
plant CCIP committee the operators pointed out that this is a waste of chemicals and
suggested to reduce the acid concentration and extend the acid regeneration step to
70 minutes. Of course this will reduce the cation regeneration efficiency, but the
operators pointed out (correctly) that both beds are regenerated when the anion
exhausts and that the anion always exhausts first. Their suggestion was put to the
test and found that it reduced neutralization chemical consumption by more than
50% with no noticeable effect on demineralizer performance.

• At another Utility A plant, it was noticed that the cost of hydrazine substitute
exceeded the amount expected by more than 50%. After talking to the operators

3-10
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

about it during a CCIP meeting it was found that they were taking advantage of a
side effect of feeding the chemical; it makes the feedwater pH increase. By feeding
excess amounts of hydrazine substitute they were able to eliminate the need to
handle cyclohexylamine. The only problem was that the hydrazine substitute costs
much more than cyclohexylamine and does not protect the condensate part of the cycle.
Operators were not aware of this. When they were informed, the cost of the
hydrazine substitute dropped sharply to the anticipated level.

• Perhaps the biggest test of the CCIP program philosophy at utility A was the
conversion to oxygenated treatment at two plants. Because of Utility A’s success with
the CCIP training, the conversion was begun by conducting training classes for all the
operators at which it was explained what was being done, why, and what was
expected to be achieve. Several good suggestions were received and fed into the
oxygen feed system design and the operators were used to help write the new
operating procedures. When the conversion was made, the level of operator
support was very high. When the inevitable problems occurred the operators were
there to resolve most of them, even some that had the engineers stumped! The
conversion was a big success. The CCIP program was able to document savings of
more than $150,000 per year per unit, which allowed Utility A to cost justify some
improvements to the oxygen feed systems that otherwise probably would not have
been made.

• Utility C was able to document an immediate, intangible benefit of the program


through collection and trending of operating data, reflecting percentage of data for
“core” parameters within the target range. As the operating personnel became
aware that their daily tests were the subject of scrutiny, they immediately began to
improve their control of system chemistry.

• Utility C, due to better control of cycle chemistry by operating personnel, was able
to reduce the amount of lost generation due to silica holds from 160,000 MWhr to
less than 30,000 Mwhr within two years.

• By improved operation, Utility C was also able to reduce annual direct chemical
costs for cooling tower treatments, boiler and feedwater treatments, and ion
exchange regenerations by approximately $800,000.

• In each water test station, a framed chart was hung on the wall to provide an
immediate reference for operating personnel. The impact and effectiveness of these
charts derives from extensive use of color coding, which is somewhat difficult to
illustrate in the black and white figures. Green, yellow, orange, and red were selected
for action levels to signify increasingly critical circumstances. Also, chart titles,
index tabs, and diagrams for each system were assigned a unique color, creating a
visual link between the various resources for that system. The result is an attractive
system of charts that is easy to interpret and use.

3-11
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• Utility D developed a “Cycle Chemistry Event Report” as a means to record cycle


chemistry-influenced availability and performance losses, and component loss of
life. Laboratory and on-line instrument data are compared daily to published limits
and action levels. Instructions for filling out this report are listed in Figure D.2,
Instructions for the Cycle Chemistry Event Report. If loss increases are noted, action
is taken to determine the root-cause and a correction is initiated.

• Utility E successfully solved several serious operating problems by simple changes


in operating procedures. Examples are:

• Station E used to have a lot a lot of condenser leaks resulting in lost generation.
As a solution, they perform hydros of the condensers at each major unit outage
opportunity before start-up. Since they started this practice, the station has only
experienced two small condenser leaks during the last two years.

• The plant had experienced a lot of problems with its Amertap condenser
cleaning system that was installed in 1986, i.e. trash pluggage and failure to
remove scale. To solve this situation, the plant discontinued its Amertap
operation, installed new trash screens, and decided to chemically clean the
condensers (one in 1996, the other in 1998).

• High levels of dissolved oxygen resulted in generating very high levels of


preboiler corrosion products, i.e. copper and iron, in Units E-1 and E-2. This
high level of preboiler corrosion product generation and transport to the boilers
( as evidenced by very high iron and copper removal during chemical cleanings)
was the principal crud contributor during unit start-ups, and the precursor to
boiler tube failures due to hydrogen damage or caustic gouging. To solve these
corrosion-product-related problems, Utility E not only waged war on finding
and correcting air in-leakage problems as described above, but also changed their
start-up procedure to hold off putting low- and high-pressure feedwater heaters into
service until the unit had reached 50-60% load or conductivity meters had returned to
normal. This procedure reduces the corrosion product inventory by directing
corrosion products, trapped in the feedwater heater extraction- and drain-lines
during low-load operation, to the condenser for removal by the condensate
polishers.

• The first big achievement of the CCIP for Utility F has been the operator training
program. The benefit of the training program is having the operators use the
on-line chemistry instrumentation to determine when a chemistry upset condition
exists, and taking initial corrective action to minimize the problem. The operators at the
participating plants have had several opportunities to respond to chemistry upsets
in the last several months, and they have responded promptly to the situation before
it became a problem.

3-12
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• At Utility F a cycle chemistry event report form is filled out any time the operator
observes a problem, the form tells what the problem was and what corrective action
was taken. The completed cycle chemistry event report form is then posted in the
control room so that the operator knows that his action was taken seriously and responded to
by the lab, maintenance or plant management.

• Utility G developed a Chemistry Manual for its operating personnel. It was written
with the understanding that it should be brief but concise. The Chemistry manual
outlines the sample points, and lists limits, action levels and required out-of-range
responses for all CCIP “core” parameters (listed in Table 1.1 in Section 1), and
establishes three control ranges for each system sample point: (1) Early Unit Startup-
Zero to 1800 PSI Steam Drum Pressure, (2) Later Stage of Startup - 1800 to 2850 PSI
Steam Drum Pressure, and (3) Normal Operation - 2650 or 2850 PSI (depends on the
generating unit). Two Tables provide the bulk of the information. They are titled
“Cycle Chemistry Limits” and “Troubleshooting Startup and Normal Operations”.
The Chemistry Manuals have been well received by the operations staff. These
manuals provide them with the necessary information to know when a problem
occurs and when it has been corrected. It also has proved to be a useful tool and resource
for the chemists in justifying their actions and requests. The established limits provide
guidance for the shift supervision on what actions to take.

• Utility G has a degreed chemist on every operating shift.

• At Utility G, out-of-range required actions now define minimum boiler pH


conditions. Having established the required actions for pH excursions eliminates the
need for debate when problems occur. Operations knows what has been agreed
upon and follows the established guidelines.

• For several years Utility G has been in the process of developing a data base system.
The main groups requiring its use are the Performance Engineering and Operations
Departments. This data management system included cycle chemistry prior to
participation in EPRI’s CCIP. Having the ability to review trends on any chemistry
parameter assists in graphically identifying problem areas.

• At Utility H, complete chemistry operating procedures were written at some plants


as part of a program to improve the entire plant operation procedure
documentation. These included detailed descriptions of the function and operation
of all equipment that affects chemistry. This included demineralizers, polishers, on-
line instrumentation, and laboratory analytical procedures.

• Part of the operational authority involving chemistry includes the ability of unit
operators to remove a boiler from service if the drum pH falls below 8. Because of
CCIP training and support of management at the highest level, Utility H operating

3-13
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

personnel can now protect the units from a potential low pH hydrogen damage
situation by removing them from service in a timely manner.

• At Utility H, operation of some equipment was changed to improve chemistry


control especially on startup. The steam seal pressure and gland loop steam seal
condenser water levels were optimized by operations to reduce air inleakage on
some units.

Improvements in Maintenance Practices

The following improvements in maintenance practices were also made by Utilities


participating in this four year demonstration project:

• Chemical cleanings at Utility B are now performed as a preventative maintenance


measure. Using waterwall tube deposit loading criteria published by EPRI, Utility B
identified opportunities to extend the time interval between chemical cleaning of
once-through boilers in the system. The normal interval between cleanings was
three years and a tube sampling program was planned to justify extension of the
interval to six years, assuming continued use of all-volatile treatment. Based on the
favorable experience with oxygenated treatment, both in the United States and
Internationally, it is now felt that the minimum interval between boiler waterwall
cleanings will be at least 10-15 years. Various factors - including time, waterside
deposit loadings and characteristics, and chemistry control - are considered when
assessing the need to clean the drum boiler units. Improved chemistry has
contributed to better cleanliness within the drum boilers.

• The support of maintenance varied at each Utility H plant. One technique used at a
station was to stamp any maintenance work request that would improve chemistry with a
red “C”. This would immediately call attention to the request so that it would be
given a high priority. The repair of on-line analyzers was improved at all plants.
Education of C&I personnel and support from their supervisor reduced the downtime for
on-line instrumentation at all plants. Station H1 had a full time instrument
technician assigned to the plant chemist.

• At Utility H, all units are evaluated for sources of air inleakage using helium mass
spectroscopy. Leaks are identified, labeled, and photographed. Maintenance work
requests were always written up to ensure the repair process could be expedited.
The photographs were used to assist maintenance personnel in locating exactly what part
needed repair. Through meetings of the CCIP team, maintenance personnel indicated
they could not always tell by a written description what part needed repair.
Therefore, in some cases in the past, repairs could not always be made.
Photographing and labeling the leaks resolved this problem.

3-14
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• At utility H, the CCIP program allowed for the evaluation of all on-line chemistry
analyzers. Obsolete, maintenance intensive and inaccurate analyzers were replaced with
state-of-the-art units. Justification was based on lack of spare parts, maintenance
burden, poor accuracy and no signal compatibility with the DAS system.

General Conclusions

The “Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program” project has clearly accomplished its
objective to “demonstrate that control of corrosion and deposition problems in fossil
power plants is achievable, and can produce substantial cost savings and other
intangible benefits within a very short time”. Many of the Utilities participating in this
effort realized actual, or estimated future savings from the following:

• Up to $890,000 annual plant savings due to increases in availability resulting from


reductions in the number of boiler tube failures due to cycle-chemistry-activated
failure mechanisms.

• Up to $2,240,000 annual savings due to an increase in unit availability and lower


labor and material costs, resulting from a reduction in the number or frequency of
boiler chemical cleanings.

• Up to 130,000 Mwhr annual increase in generated MWhr due to reductions in silica


holds during startups.

• Up to $615,000 annual savings in plant regeneration chemicals and resin costs,


resulting from use of state-of-the-art cycle chemistry technology and improved
water chemistry.

• Up to $3,000,000 annual savings due to increases in unit generation due to


reductions in turbine deposition problems.

• Up to $1,780,000 annual savings due to increases in unit availability due to a


reduction in cycle chemistry-related turbine problems.

• Up to 4% increases in unit availability due to elimination of, or lower frequency of,


condenser leaks.

• Reductions in heat rate due to less boiler blowdowns.

• Up to $1,800,000 in lower system chemical costs due to better purchasing strategies.

Additional guidance and insight can be gained by other utilities, possibly considering
the implementation of a formalized cycle chemistry improvement program, from the
following general comments made by the participating Utilities:

3-15
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• Utility B personnel found formal participation in EPRI’s CCIP to be a rewarding


experience. Not only were the decisions made and implemented in the early 1990’s
reinforced as being appropriate actions consistent with industry wide preferred practices, but
additional opportunities to further improve station-specific programs were identified and
implemented.

• Over the past several years, Utility D has made operating units with good cycle
chemistry a high priority. The ways in which the plants are instrumented and
staffed are indicative of this commitment. Participation in this demonstration also
indicated the company’s commitment to maintaining a cycle chemistry program that
ensures reliable operation of steam/water equipment for years to come. A key
element of this commitment is that all levels of plant and corporate management
must take responsibility for cycle chemistry. Responsibility for good cycle chemistry is a
team effort, and all levels of management need to be frequently involved, not just when
problems occur.

• The multidiscipline plant CCIP teams at Utility F have worked well together. With
the operations, maintenance, chemistry and management personnel all contributing
and working towards the same goals under the CCIP, the essential aspects of the
program have been workable and effective.

• At Utility G, developing a team approach to address cycle chemistry problems is


seen as an efficient way to solve cycle chemistry problems and reduce costs.

• Utility H has found that a well organized and properly supported CCIP program
can definitely lead to improvement in a utility’s bottom line profitability, and in
order for a CCIP program to be successful in its implementation and day-to-day operation, it
must be supported from the executive level on down.

• Utility I found that problems associated with implementation of its three cycle-
chemistry-focused improvement programs were considered minor. For a utility to
maintain a competitive edge, continual vigilance in maintaining steam purity and in
searching for ways to further reduce operating costs associated with corrosion and
deposition is recommended.

Concerns

Implementing a formalized CCIP is not without its problems, reservations or concerns.


Many concerns were voiced by participating Utilities during the duration of, and at the
end of, this project. These are also summarized for the reader below.

• In order to justify CCIP expenditures for instrumentation, polishers, data


acquisition/expert systems, etc., Utility A suggests that much more effort be made
by utility technical personnel to determine and present cycle chemistry-related

3-16
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

indirect costs, other than the more apparent ones, i.e. boiler tube failures or turbine
blade failures, in a manner that corporate or plant managers can more readily
appreciate, such as:

• steam path audit data (see Appendix B) on turbine blade deposits and presented in
terms of MW capability losses,

• condenser cleanliness data derived from condenser performance testing or


monitoring and presented in terms of lost unit MW capability or higher heat rate due to
a higher backpressure,

• feedwater heater performance test data and presented in terms of a higher unit heat
rate and lost boiler feed pump capacity due to feedwater heater fouling,

• boiler blowdown data and presented in terms of impact on boiler efficiency and unit
net heat rate, and

• boiler scheduled-outage data and presented in terms of the impact on unit availability
that was due to a boiler chemical cleaning.

• Because utilities are rigorously downsizing to become more competitive in the


marketplace, and greater reliance for handling cycle chemistry -related problems is
being placed on operating personnel, Utility A recommends that industry
development of a user-friendly expert system be accelerated.

• Utility A was also a participant in EPRI’s Boiler Tube Failure Reduction (BTFR)
Program. During the four-year duration of Utility A’s CCIP, these two in-house
Programs were being run by different personnel in different departments, making it
difficult to obtain the necessary resources to maximize the availability and
performance improvements of either Program. In light of this experience, a final
recommendation is directed towards utilities considering the implementation of a
CCIP, when it does or does not already have an EPRI in-house Boiler Tube failure
Reduction (BTFR) Program. Utility A recommends that the Utility should seriously
consider implementing a single combined CCIP/BTFR Program to ensure
continuing success and longevity by maximizing the synergistic benefits of both
Programs.

• Due to travel budget restrictions, personnel from Utility B were not able to attend
annual meetings of the CCIP Utility Coordinators. As a result, opportunities for
exchange of useful ideas with other companies having similar interests were lost. To
the extent possible, this was compensated for by information transfer and support
from EPRI Project Team members.

• Utility C’s intention is to eventually express the benefits of the Cycle Chemistry
Improvement Program in terms of dollars saved, rather than more ambiguous

3-17
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

measures, such as unit availability and reduced opportunity costs. Some of the
conversions are straight forward; however, it is believed that the necessary
assumptions should be developed jointly by several utilities to improve uniformity
and credibility.

• Utility C was also a participant in EPRI’s Boiler Tube Failure Reduction (BTFR)
Program demonstration project and, coexistent with its CCIP, has an in-house BTFR
Program. Unfortunately this program is being run by a separate department and
the synergistic benefits of a combined CCIP/BTFR program, such as single source
program management and responsibility, emphasized company rather than
departmental goals, combined resources, and the integration of the training are not
being realized. It is felt that a stronger link should be created between a CCIP
program and, where they exist, other in-house availability/performance
improvement programs, such that the maximum synergistic benefits can be realized.

• With the more competitive utility environment, justifying cycle chemistry


equipment and instruments is almost impossible. The criteria used to evaluate a
project at Utility D has been severely restricted to ensure solid cost reductions, not
just inflated savings. Consequently, only projects with short payback periods and
rock solid savings are approved.

• While high availability remains important at Utility D, additional emphasis has been
placed on reducing forced outages. Unless documented forced outages due to cycle
chemistry are occurring, justifying cycle chemistry instrumentation or a user-
friendly data acquisition/expert system for technical and operational use to solve or
prevent a problem that may occur, is difficult if not impossible.

• With the work force reductions taking place in the utility industry, Utility D feels
that simpler, and less time-consuming methods of troubleshooting cycle chemistry
problems and evaluating water quality data need to be developed. Development of
these methods will have to take place outside the industry because of the reduced
work force levels.

• The information provided in recent EPRI manuals provided great assistance in


developing unit-specific cycle chemistry technologies. Utility D feels that more
accurate methods still need to be developed, however, regarding when a boiler
needs to be chemically cleaned. The currently available technology does not go far
enough in accurately predicting when a chemical cleaning is necessary.

• To facilitate this demonstration at utility D, good engineering judgment was used to


estimate much of the performance losses and component loss of life. This method
produces data that is too inaccurate to use as a basis for cycle chemistry economic
justifications. Better methods need to be developed to produce more accurate loss
data.

3-18
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

• CCIP participation has resulted in both successes and setbacks at Station E.1 of
Utility E. Perhaps the most apparent benefit is the increased interest in chemistry
shown by Station management, staff and operating personnel. Recent cost cutting
measures and staff reorganization/reduction assessments within Utility E has
limited CCIP implementation progress. The capital projects budget for chemistry
improvements in 1995 was cut but it was thought that some of the work will be
approved for inclusion in future budgets. This action has limited the ability of
Utility E to show significant progress in terms of achieving original CCIP goals
following initial training of plant personnel.

• The performance indices can be used as a tool to track long term trends, but can be
misleading when used to forecast expenses and calculate savings. The cost of a
forced outage can be calculated, however, because a unit did not have a chemistry
related forced outage this month or this year does not necessarily mean that the
CCIP saved that amount. The expense may be delayed to some time in the future,
and the CCIP may be just one of several factors causing the expense to be delayed.
This does not mean that the CCIP is not beneficial, but rather that the savings
attributable to the CCIP are difficult to quantify.

• In participating in this program, the most significant challenge for Utility G was to
identify actual cost savings attributed to improved cycle chemistry. Improvements
or detrimental changes are often difficult to attribute to just one area. Chemistry
plays a role in this process as do day-to-day operational and maintenance practices.

• Utility H’s area of greatest concern in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project is the
difficulty in quantifying chemistry-related costs. It is possible to document many
material-related chemical costs (acid, acoustic, resin, etc.), however, it is felt that
larger chemistry costs are hidden in other areas. Tube failures due to chemistry
problems could be a source of justification for equipment such as condensate
polishers. However, a way to more accurately quantify the cost of corrosion-
influenced failure mechanisms for boiler tubes, such as corrosion fatigue and stress
corrosion is sorely needed.

• The greatest problem in the future of Utility H’s CCIP program is the reduction of
essential CCIP team personnel, as the plant chemist position no longer exists. The
five plant chemist positions were replaced by two regional chemists. Many of the
other original CCIP team members are also no longer with the company or are in
different position. Due to this reduction in on-site chemical support for the
operating personnel, Utility H recommends that EPRI accelerate its Efforts to
develop a user-friendly expert system for operators to become more self sufficient in
handling most common cycle chemistry upsets.

• Utility H feels that once a utility has committed to a CCIP program, the methods
used to implement it should be given very careful consideration. Without a well

3-19
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

defined implementation plan, the program may experience setbacks or delays. Data
gathering methods, establishing realistic technical and cost performance
measurement indices, team personnel requirements, and specific goals should be
thoroughly developed prior to the startup of the program.

• Utility H also feels that EPRI’s involvement with the program should be expanded
to provide assistance to the utility coordinator on an as needed basis. The concept of
a continuing tailored collaboration CCIP project, with strong EPRI support in terms
of manpower and a technical assistance, would be beneficial to both EPRI and the
utilities.

• With the increase in competition, utility companies are reducing staff to maintain
profit levels while lowering rate structures. Staff reductions at some utilities have
reduced chemistry personnel at a higher percentage than other areas. Utility H feels
that the future of plant chemistry will depend on the education of key utility
personnel as well as maintaining sufficient plant chemistry staff and some type of a
CCIP.

• Utility I also has an in-house EPRI Boiler Tube Failure Reduction (BTFR) Program,
that is being run within another section of the same department that the CCIP is
being directed from. Both Programs are being run very successfully, but Utility I
would recommend to any Utility that is planning to implement an EPRI CCIP, that
does not already have an in-house EPRI BTFR Program, that they implement a
single combined CCIP/BTFR Program, such that the synergistic benefits of single
source responsibility, combined Program resources, and combined section or
department/company availability and performance improvement objectives can be
realized.

• With the implementation of the CCIP at all Utility I fossil stations, and the
introduction and use of the Steam Purity Performance Index for performance
evaluations of plant operating personnel, Utility I appreciates the additional
technical support needs of its plant operating personnel, and recommends that EPRI
accelerate its development of a user-friendly expert system such that the active
involvement of operating personnel can be maximized.

Research Needs

During the course of this demonstration program the concerns of the participating
utilities reflect the following programmatic and technical difficulties of their CCIP
programs for future research consideration by EPRI:

• Obtaining Accurate CCIP Indirect Costs

3-20
EPRI Licensed Material
Conclusions and Recommendations

Many utilities have expressed difficulty in determining relatively accurate indirect cycle
chemistry-related costs for: a) availability losses resulting from boiler tube failures due
to corrosion fatigue, or turbine blade failures due to stress corrosion cracking, or other
components where chemistry, design shortfall and age can be simultaneous or
combined contributors, and b) performance and efficiency losses due to feedwater
heater and condenser fouling and boiler blowdowns.

• Chemical Expertise for Operating Personnel

Because of competitive pressures, many utilities have had to restructure and downsize
corporate and plant chemistry personnel. This has resulted in plant management
having to rely almost exclusively on operating personnel to handle day-to-day cycle
chemistry operating duties and upsets during all operating shifts. Many operating
personnel do not have the technical knowledge to address most cycle chemistry
abnormal conditions or upsets in a safe and expeditious manner, and have requested
more training and better computer monitoring with expert system support capability.
Limited resources have prevented EPRI member utilities from expanding existing data
acquisition systems (DAS) to include chemical expert systems for support for operating
personnel. It was recommended by many participating utilities that EPRI accelerate
their development of a cycle chemistry expert system for use by operating personnel in
fossil plants.

• Maximizing Synergistic Benefits of a Combined CCIP/BTFR Program

Six of the participating utilities already had an in-house EPRI Boiler Tube Failure
Reduction (BTFR) Program prior to becoming hosts for the EPRI CCIP demonstration
project. In most cases, the synergistic benefits of conducting both of these programs, i.e.
single program responsibility, single corporate rather than multiple divisional and
departmental goals, combined rather than competitive priorities and resources, and
integrated rather than separate program training were not being fully realized. Even
though most felt that their separate BTFR and CCIP Programs were successful, they
would recommend, first, that EPRI develop integrated training materials for member
utility use and training, and, second, that other member utilities considering the
implementation of either a BTFR or CCIP Program seriously consider implementing a
combined BTFR/CCIP Program.

3-21
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Appendix A
UTILITY RESULTS

Coverage of Utility Cycle Chemistry Programs

At the beginning of the demonstration project, the participating utilities differed widely
in their knowledge, staffing, resources, and application of the technical or
programmatic CCIP features discussed in Section 1. The purpose of this section is to
describe the scope of participation for each utility, in terms of number and size of units,
types of boilers, chemistries, number of people trained, etc,; and the results each
achieved in terms of cost reduction or in operating, maintenance or technical
performance changes/improvements. Where appropriate and consistent with overall
program philosophy, results achieved prior to utility participation in the demonstration
project are separately described, such that credit for prior achievements can be
recognized.

Tangible program results are presented and derived using data obtained from the
participating utilities. Therefore, these results reflect utility-specific costs and benefits
achieved. In some cases results are presented on a percentage basis and, therefore, can
be generally applied. Where utility- provided information permits, results for each will
be presented as follows:

Utility Designation (A,B,etc.)

Scope of Participation

• Rationale for Project Participation

• Number, size of Plants/Units Participating

• Types of Boilers (Drum or Once-Through, Pressure Ranges)

• Chemistry(ies) Used

A-1
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Program Progress Review

• Operations (limits, action levels, procedures, training)

• Maintenance (priority for analyzers and instrumentation)

• Technical (equipment upgrades or chemistry control modifications)

Performance Indices Development

• Technical (description of type adopted, data management)

• Cost (list of cost categories and items to be included)

Examples of CCIP Programmatic and Technical Developments

• Reductions in CCIP Direct or Indirect Costs

• Management of CCIPs

• Operating, Maintenance or Technical Improvements

• Justification Of Major Expenditures For CCIP Improvements

Concerns/Problems and Recommendations

• Programmatic or Technical Issues

• Technical or Cost Performance Index Issues

An overall project summary (i.e. combining inputs from all participating utilities) of
significant accomplishments/results is presented in Section 2, Program Results.

Individual Utility Results

The following descriptions are a synopsis of the inputs/ results received from the
participating Utilities. Confidentiality has been obtained through use of alphabetic
designations, i.e., Utility A through Utility I.

A-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Utility A

Scope of Participation

Utility A was interested in participating in the CCIP demonstration project because of


their reliance on operating personnel for routine surveillance and control of cycle
chemistry. They were already familiar with the team approach required as a result of
participation in a previous EPRI-sponsored demonstration project on boiler tube failure
reduction, prevention and control4. Plant-specific operator chemistry training was
developed and presented, covering all fossil plants on the system.

Project participation began with programmatic training in April of 1992. System


involvement included five plants, approximately 5696 MW, encompassing sixteen
operating units: thirteen drum boilers with operating pressures of 925 to 2700 psig and
three once-through supercritical boilers. Chemistries used in the plants included
congruent phosphate (CPT), all-volatile treatment (AVT), and oxygenated treatment
(OT). Condensate polishers are used on two of the large drum units and all three once-
through units.

Program/Progress Review

The following is a brief summary of Utility A’s CCIP progress during the period of
April 1992-December 1995:

Operations

EPRI’s CCIP program required that the host utility determine unit-specific
chemistry limits and action levels. Utility A had already established unit-specific
chemistry limits and action levels using the 1986 EPRI Interim Consensus Guidelines as
a reference. So this activity was merely a review to make sure each limit was applied to
the plant in a cost effective manner. Each limit was reviewed not only on the basis of its
chemical justification, but whether it was achievable and at what cost. Utility A
established its limits for the “core” parameters listed in Table 1.1 in Section 1 using the
following pragmatic approach:

• For Small 40 Year Old Drum Units


The existing limits for these units were considered satisfactory even though they
might have been slightly higher than those suggested by the EPRI guideline, because
operational experience had demonstrated no significant cycle chemistry-related
problems. For some less critical parameters on the older units, such as boiler water
silica or condensate oxygen concentration, the limits were relaxed. Utility A believes
that the savings in lost generation outweighed the cost of any resulting problems,
resulting in a lower net cost. CCIP cost data have been reviewed each year to
confirm this assumption.
A-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

For example, Utility A was taking load losses worth more than $75,000 per year by
applying the EPRI limits for boiler water silica during startup. It is doubtful that the
turbine deposits prevented (if any, for it was speculated that most of the deposits
would wash off during startup and shutdown) would have cost that much money.
Relaxed limits were created for application only during startup.

Pressure holds for silica control during startup were eliminated while finding no
noticeable increase in turbine silica deposits. This is a good example of the need to
review limits on a case-by-case basis rather than to merely copy them from the EPRI
manual.

• For Units 300 MW or Larger


Operational experience and the results from limited boiler carryover testing, using
EPRI’s methodology described in Module 4 of the CCIP training Manual6, were used
to set the “core” parameter limits for these units. For the units on which the “core”
parameter limits were already being bettered or not exceeded, no effort was made to
reduce the limits. Utility A was not using these tests to necessarily reduce unit
parameter limits, if those limits suggested in the EPRI guidelines were bettered, but
to compare unit carryover levels, at higher than rated flow rates, to those guaranteed
by the boiler manufacturer at the maximum continuous rating (MCR) as discussed
in the EPRI guidelines5, and to check the integrity of the drum liners.

Equipment Upgrades

Utility A plants operating above 2000 psi drum pressure already have state-of- the-art
chemistry monitoring equipment. Therefore, no equipment upgrades were done as part
of the program.

Operator Training

The EPRI program only included a two day training session. The “standard” session
covers programmatic as well as technical issues addressing the critical elements of a
formalized CCIP. It is presented to all plant multifunctional personnel.

Utility A uses an operator rotation program whereby all of the operators are rotated
through all of the operations jobs in the plant. The chemistry jobs are included in the
rotation program. Further complicating things is the fact that Utility A does not have a
chemistry department at each plant; and relies heavily on the expertise of the
operations staff. Utility A conducted surveys of their operators and found that many of
them wanted more training. Because of this it was deemed essential to include an
expanded chemistry training program for the operators in the program.

A-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

The EPRI contractor, General Physics Service Corporation, was hired to design and
teach a two-day site-specific operator course on cycle chemistry. The course materials
were customized for each plant so that, for example, operators from a plant with low
pressure boilers did not have to sit through a section on once-through boiler water
chemistry control. The course included basic chemistry, a step by step explanation of
the water treatment processes, a discussion of each chemistry limit and why it was
important, and a review of the CCIP program and the chemistry policies that Utility A
was trying to implement. In addition to the instructor from General Physics, a Utility A
supervisor was present at all the sessions to answer policy related questions and to
record suggestions.

These courses were a big success. Feedback indicated that more than 90% of the
approximately 250 operators thought the course was worthwhile. More than 80% rated
it “very good” or “excellent.” More than 100 suggestions were received on how to
improve chemistry operation, and operator morale was greatly increased.

Performance Indices Development

The problem with cycle chemistry limits (and their respective technical performance
indices) is that they do not relate directly to cost. Without this relationship it is difficult
to decide on the best “core” parameter chemistry limit for a particular unit or plant.
Utility A initially planned to use technical performance indices, such as boiler or
turbine environment indices, to gauge its progress but it encountered a reluctance on
the part of many operators to use them because “they don’t relate to anything”. For
these reasons, and knowing that the other participating companies would be
concentrating on technical performance indices, Utility A decided to forego these
indices and concentrate on monitoring costs.

The results of the training program showed little awareness of the cost of chemicals or the cost of
water chemistry operations among the plant staff. For example, the staff did not know the
cost to produce a gallon of demineralized water. The operators were surprised to find
that it cost close to $1,000 every time they push the “regenerate” button on the makeup
demineralizer.

As part of its CCIP, Utility A worked to track chemistry costs. In most cases the data
was already being collected, it was just a matter of gathering it from other internal
reports. A typical cost report is shown in Table A.1. These reports have been produced
annually for each plant and company-wide. Each year it has been possible to estimate
and include more costs. The direct-cost components of the cost report were developed
as follows:

• Lost MWhr due to chemistry upsets and the lost MWhr due to boiler tube failures
were obtained directly from reports to the NERC Generation Availability Data
System. Most companies report this data and it is very accurate. In Utility A’s
A-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

experience, the other costs associated with these outages are small compared to the
cost of lost generation so only the costs of the lost generation are considered for
these outages.

• Payments for emergency portable demineralizer services, chemical cleaning,


chemicals and resin were obtained from computerized purchasing records.

A-6
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table A.1
Utility A Chemistry and Water Treatment Costs

CAUSE $1,988-90 1991 1992 1993 1994


Avg./Year
Losses
1.Lost MWhr (H2O Chemistry
Upsets)
• Boiler Water Conditions
$315,000 $28,700 $55,650 $70,560 $134,000
• Boiler Water Silica 145,800 0 0 0 0
• Makeup System Problems 35,000 2,400 0 0 0
• Feedwater pH Control 1,500 170 0 8,200 5,100
• Turbine Blade Fouling 0 23,800 3237 0 0
• Misc. Chemistry Problems 800 2280 3237 1305 0
Total 498,100 57,290 62,124 80,065 139,200
2.Payments for Emergency 249,000 156,890 165,890 93,265 341,600
H2O
917,000 63,000 46,000 125,000 143,000
3.Lost MWhr(WW Tube Fail.)
$1,664,100 $276,675 $274,014 $298,330 $623,800
Total Losses
Direct Costs
4. Miscellaneous
Chemical Cleanings $100,000 $202,000 $0 $126,000 $0
Chemical and Resin Costs 1,234,000 1,327,451 2,009,434 1,673,120 981,000
Total Miscellaneous 1,334,000 1,529,451 2,009,434 1,799,120 981,000
5. Manpower Costs (Estimated) NA 2,565,000 2,565,000 2,565,000 2,565,000
6. Maint. Costs for Water NA 1,194,000 965,000 1,141,000 1,141,000
Treatment (Estimated)
7. Central Office and Lab NA 300,720 282,400 296,480 296,480
Support
Total Direct Costs NA $5,565,126 $5,813,448 $5,803,450 $5,310,800
Indirect Costs
8. Premature Equip.
Replacement due to
Chemistry
Misc. Equipment NA $657,000 $718,000 $201,000 $140,000
L. P. Turbine NA 0 438,000 826,000 0
Replacement
Total Equipment
Replace.Costs NA 657,000 1,156,000 1,027,000 140,000
9. Efficiency Losses NA NA NA NA NA
Total Indirect Costs NA $657,000 $1,156,000 $1,027,000 $140,000

Total Water Chemistry Costs NA $6,489,801 $7,243,462 $7,128,780 $6,074,600

A-7
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

• Manpower costs were estimated based on the number of operators dedicated to


chemistry related functions and a percentage overhead. This is not the most accurate
method but it could be done quickly. The accounting necessary to improve the
accuracy of this number is probably not worth the effort.

• Maintenance costs for water treatment were obtained from plant maintenance
records. It was determined which equipment was chemistry related and then the
costs for that equipment was obtained from the computerized records.

• Central office and lab support costs were obtained as a percentage of plant O&M for
water treatment.

It was found that direct-costs represent only a small part of the overall picture, and can
be very misleading. For example, a plant could reduce the use of corrosion inhibitors
and therefore reduce its direct cost of chemicals. Carried to an extreme, this would
probably result in greatly reduced equipment life and consequently a cost to replace it.
This seemingly obvious fact was not all that apparent to some members of the staff.

With this in mind, Utility A made attempts to estimate indirect costs. This was found to
be very difficult. Often equipment lasts for a good portion of its design life, or fails for a
multitude of reasons, only some of which are related to chemistry. In most of the
examples used by others, the entire cost of replacement is assigned to chemistry. Utility
A thinks this approach decreases the credibility of the data. The reaction is that “it
would have failed for other reasons anyway, so what did we lose?”.

To deal with this, Utility A assigned a chemistry factor and an age factor to each major
equipment replacement. The chemistry factor was a simple estimation of the significance of
chemistry in the failure mechanism which ended the life of the subject component. The age factor
is determined by subtracting the actual life of the equipment being replaced from its original
design life. In most cases the design life had to be estimated. For example in Table A.2,
first item, the hydrogen damage is considered to be a 100% chemistry-related failure
mechanism and, therefore, waterwall tube replacements due to hydrogen damage are
considered 100% due to chemistry, but only if there are no other active damaging
mechanisms. In this example, other mechanisms were active, such as fireside corrosion,
that had already used up 80% of the tubing’s design life so an age factor of 20% was
assigned. Multiplying the cost of replacement waterwalls by both of these factors
charges $625,000 of the total replacement costs to chemistry. Corrosion fatigue on the
other hand has a design or stress component, and it is questioned whether it can be
resolved by water chemistry improvements alone. So Utility A assigned only 25% of the
cost of equipment repairs caused by corrosion fatigue to chemistry. This method
requires tough judgments on the relative importance of chemistry in failure
mechanisms but Utility A believes it results in better and more credible data.

A-8
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table A.2 shows a typical calculation of equipment replacement costs at one of Utility
A’s plants.
Table A.2
Equipment Replacement Costs Due to Water Chemistry

Unit Year Type of Repair Cost Chem Age Total


Factor Factor

A1-1 1992 Replacement waterwalls due to $3,125,000 100% 20% $625,000


hydrogen damage

A1-1 1992 Replace LP rotor due to SPE and $5,928,000 25% 0% $0


corrosion fatigue

A1-1 1991 Repair hydrogen damage - $295,000 100% 20% $59,000


south waterwall

A1-3 1992 Replace LP turbine rotor $10,970,000 50% 8% $438,800


because of stress corrosion
cracking

A1-3 1994 Demineralizer upgrade $500,000 0% 0% $0

A1-2 1994 Waterwall replacement - $438,000 25% 33% $36,135


corrosion fatigue

A1-1 1992 Replace #5 FW heater - $855,000 0% 0% $0


Exfoliation

Totals $22,111,000 $1,158,135

The cost of efficiency losses are even more difficult to determine. This work was not
fully completed as of the writing of this report. The cost of boiler blowdown was
calculated from flow estimates, the enthalpy of the boiler water and fuel costs. The cost
of turbine deposits was estimated based on the steam path audit data where it was
available. Other costs, such as environmental costs, were not calculated.

The operators have shown a great interest in these costs and are willing to work to
reduce them through the program. Feeding back actual cost data has increased
enthusiasm and interest. This alone has made the effort to determine costs worthwhile.

A-9
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Examples of CCIP Benefits, Costs, Programmatic and Technical Developments

The following are examples of various diversified benefits gained at Utility A through
implementation of a formalized CCIP. They came about by direction and support of the
CCIP from senior management, more awareness, training and active participation by
operating personnel, and implementation of state-of-the-art water treatment practices.

• At one plant, makeup demineralizer regeneration wastes are not neutralized prior
to entering the waste treatment plant, which was retrofit many years after the plant
was built. The acid and caustic regeneration steps proceed simultaneously and the
amounts of acid and caustic used theoretically neutralize each other. But the
procedure calls for a 40 minute acid regeneration and a 70 minute caustic
regeneration. The waste treatment plant pH neutralization tank sees influent water
with a pH that is too low for 40 minutes and too high for 30 minutes. It feeds
neutralization chemicals accordingly. At one of the regular meetings of the plant
CCIP committee the operators pointed out that this is a waste of chemicals and
suggested to reduce the acid concentration and extend the acid regeneration step to
70 minutes. Of course this will reduce the cation regeneration efficiency, but the
operators pointed out (correctly) that both beds are regenerated when the anion
exhausts and that the anion always exhausts first. Their suggestion was put to the
test and found that it reduced neutralization chemical consumption by more than
50% with no noticeable effect on demineralizer performance.

• At another plant Utility A noticed that the cost of hydrazine substitute exceeded the
amount expected by more than 50%. After talking to the operators about it during a
CCIP meeting it was found that they were taking advantage of a side effect of
feeding the chemical; it makes the feedwater pH increase. By feeding excess
amounts of hydrazine substitute they were able to eliminate the need to handle
cyclohexylamine. The only problem was that the hydrazine substitute costs much more
than cyclohexylamine and does not protect the condensate part of the cycle. Operators were
not aware of this. When they were informed, the cost of the hydrazine substitute
dropped sharply to the anticipated level.

• Perhaps the biggest test of the CCIP program philosophy was the conversion to
oxygenated treatment at two plants. Because of Utility A’s success with the CCIP
training, the conversion was begun by conducting training classes for all the
operators at which it was explained what was being done, why, and what was
expected to be achieve. Several good suggestions were received and fed into the
oxygen feed system design and the operators were used to help write the new
operating procedures. When the conversion was made, the level of operator support
was very high. When the inevitable problems occurred the operators were there to
resolve most of them, even some that had the engineers stumped! The conversion
was a big success. The CCIP program was able to document savings of more than
$150,000 per year per unit, which allowed Utility A to cost justify some

A-10
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

improvements to the oxygen feed systems that otherwise probably would not have
been made.

Concerns/Problems and Recommendations

In order to justify CCIP expenditures for instrumentation, polishers, data


acquisition/expert systems, etc., Utility A suggests that much more effort be made by
utility technical personnel to determine and present cycle chemistry-related indirect
costs, other than the more apparent ones, i.e. boiler tube failures or turbine blade
failures, in a manner that corporate/plant managers can more readily appreciate, such
as:

• steam path audit data (see Appendix B) on turbine blade deposits and presented in
terms of MW capability losses,

• condenser cleanliness data derived from condenser performance testing or


monitoring and presented in terms of lost unit MW capability or higher heat rate due to a
higher backpressure,

• feedwater heater performance test data and presented in terms of a higher unit heat rate
and lost boiler feed pump capacity due to feedwater heater fouling,

• boiler blowdown data and presented in terms of impact on boiler efficiency and unit net
heat rate, and

• boiler scheduled outage data and presented in terms of the impact on unit availability
that was due to a boiler chemical cleaning.

Because utilities are rigorously downsizing to become more competitive in the


marketplace, and greater reliance for handling cycle- chemistry -related problems is
being placed on operating personnel, Utility A recommends that industry development
of a user-friendly expert system be accelerated.

Utility A was also a participant in EPRI’s Boiler Tube Failure Reduction (BTFR)
Program. During the four year duration of Utility A’s CCIP, these two in-house
Programs were being run by different personnel in different departments, making it
difficult to obtain the necessary resources to maximize the availability and performance
improvements of either Program. In light of this experience, a final recommendation is
directed towards utilities considering the implementation of a CCIP, when it does or
does not already have an EPRI in-house Boiler Tube failure Reduction (BTFR) Program4.
Utility A recommends that the Utility should seriously consider implementing a single
combined CCIP/BTFR Program to ensure continuing success and longevity by
maximizing the synergistic benefits of both Programs.

A-11
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Utility B

Scope of Participation

Chemistry-related boiler tube failures at Utility B had led to several improvements in


the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. EPRI publications were relied on exclusively for
guidance on boiler tube failure correction, prevention and control during this transition
period. Participation in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project was initiated primarily to
create opportunities for exchange of ideas with other utilities, and to determine where
opportunities for further improvement existed.

Project participation began with programmatic training in September, 1993. System


involvement included two plants, approximately 1,751 MW, encompassing six
operating units: four drum boilers with an operating pressure range of 1,900 to 2,400
psig and two once-through subcritical 2,400 psig boilers. Chemistries used in the plants
included congruent phosphate(CPT) for the drum units and all-volatile treatment(AVT)
for the subcritical units. The subcritical units are planned for conversion to oxygenated
water treatment in 1995-1996. Condensate polishers are used on one drum unit and on
both subcritical once-through units.

Program/Progress Review

The importance of cycle chemistry control to fossil plant unit availability and reliability
was recognized by management at Utility B well before the inception of EPRI’s CCIP
demonstration project. Utility B began making progress towards achieving the generic
limits listed in EPRI cycle chemistry guidelines in 1990. Issues of specific concern in the
1980’s included the following items:

• high incidence of condenser tube leaks in drum boiler units,

• unacceptable boiler tube failure rates in drum boiler units without condensate
polishers,

• use of 1950’s vintage treatment programs in drum boiler units without

• condensate polishers,

• use of unreliable sampling and analysis systems in older units, and

• performance of boiler chemical cleanings as corrective rather than preventive


maintenance activities.

These problem areas persisted despite three control limit revisions, based on
consideration of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) criteria, between 1982 and

A-12
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

1988. Experience with chemistry control in newer once-through units, and a high
pressure drum boiler unit with a condensate polisher, had been more favorable since
unit design, operating approach and treatment philosophy were all based on modern
technology.

Working with a private consultant and a representative of EPRI, Utility B management


established and implemented an action plan to address deficiencies in the older drum
boiler units. Key activities initiated during 1990 included:

• Issuance of a Chemical Control Philosophy Directive for the low pressure drum
boiler units. In essence, this document is analogous to the Utility CCIP Philosophy
Statement described in Section 1.0 of this report.

• Assessment of existing program limits and revisions consistent with EPRI Interim
Consensus Guidelines on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry.

• Definition of the individual unit’s ability to comply with modified chemistry limits
during a rigorous monitoring period of six months duration.

• Development of a condenser action plan to address existing deficiencies, considering


approach taken in the drum unit with a condensate polisher.

• Assessment of costs and benefits associated with retrofit of condensate polishers in


drum boiler units not originally outfitted with this equipment.

• Revision of a Station Chemical Control Manual consistent with modified limits for
startup and normal operation.

The modified program chemistry limits for drum boiler units without condensate
polishers were customized site-specific versions of the EPRI Interim Consensus
Guidelines5 and included both normal values and action level ranges. The monitoring
program revealed that it was extremely difficult to achieve many of the guideline values.
Table B.1 is a results compliance summary for one of the units monitored; data
indicated are generally representative of all units included in the monitoring program.

The testing program underscored the deficiency of condensers within these units - both
as sources of dissolved solids (via cooling water ingress) and dissolved gases (via poor
deaeration efficiency). Based on program findings, it was decided to make the necessary
improvements to cycle chemistry-related power generation equipment, process controls
and cycle chemistry to permanently achieve the cycle chemistry limits of the EPRI
guidelines. A first major step was the replacement of condensers on Units B1-4, B1-5
and B1-6.

Justification: Findings of the chemistry monitoring program, together with large


availability losses due to condenser leaks and high operating and maintenance costs
A-13
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

supported plans to retube the condensers of these units. High pressure drum and once-
through units in the system had been retubed in the 1980’s. Condenser retubing
activities are summarized in Table B.2.

In response to the poor oxygen removal capability, the makeup water injection systems
for the low-pressure drum units were redesigned. Other capital projects implemented
to support cycle chemistry programs at Utility B are indicated in Table B.3. Note that the
entries address work completed prior to and during the period of EPRI’s CCIP participation.

Following entry to EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project, Utility B performed a


comprehensive review of chemistry limits, action levels, sampling systems, and on-line
analyzers in use. In general, existing approaches were found to be satisfactory.
Installation of sodium analyzers in 1994 and 1995 was performed in order to conform with
the minimum levels of instrumentation expected of all participating utilities (Table 1.1). As a
result of subsequent evaluations and investigations during the period of CCIP
participation, it was decided to convert once-through boiler units from all volatile to
oxygenated treatments. Conversion is scheduled to coincided with major unit outages
in the spring of 1996, at which time chemical cleaning is scheduled to be conducted.
Conversion was planned to generally follow the approach developed by EPRI1 and
applied successfully by many other utilities. Personnel training will be given as needed
to facilitate conversion to oxygenated treatment.

Chemical cleanings at Utility B are now performed as a preventative maintenance


2
measure. Using waterwall tube deposit loading criteria published by EPRI , Utility B
identified opportunities to extend the time interval between chemical cleaning of once-
through boilers in the system. The normal interval between cleanings was three years
and a tube sampling program was planned to justify extension of the interval to six
years, assuming continued use of all-volatile treatment. Based on the favorable
experience with oxygenated treatment, both in the United States and Internationally, it
is now felt that the minimum interval between boiler waterwall cleanings will be at
least 10-15 years. To mitigate solid particle erosion damage to turbines, superheaters
and reheaters of once-through and high pressure drum boiler units are cleaned every
six years. Various factors - including time, waterside deposit loadings and
characteristics, and chemistry control - are considered when assessing the need to clean
the drum boiler units. Improved chemistry has contributed to better cleanliness within
the drum boilers.

Administration of the Utility B Quality Control Program follows the approach taken
prior to EPRI CCIP participation. Cycle chemistry meetings are held at each station on a
quarterly basis. Typical meeting agenda items are as follows:

A-14
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table B.1 Percent Of Operating Time In Each Level


May 14, 1990-November 1, 1990
(Representative Of All Participating Units)

Boilerwater

Constituent Normal Action Action Action


Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Chloride 70% 22% 7% 1%


Silica 94% 5% 1% -
Phosphate 44% 56% - -
pH 18% 82% - -

Feedwater

Ammonia 82% 18% - -


Hydrazine 62% 38% - -
pH 95% 4% 1% -
Cation Conductivity 68% 12% 6% 14%
Oxygen Deaerator In 37% 63% - -
Oxygen Deaerator Out 97% 3% - -

Table B.2 Condenser Retubing Activity Summary

Unit Year Cost

B1-7 Titanium 1983 $2,500,000


B2-1 90/10 Cu/Ni 1985 $2,000,000
B2-2 90/10 Cu/Ni 1986 $2,000,000
B1-6 Titanium 1991 $2,245,000
B1-4 Titanium 1992 $2,330,000
B1-5 Titanium 1994 $2,500,000

Total $13,575,000

A-15
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table B.3 Chemistry-Related Projects; 1986-1995

Year Project Description Cost

1986 Condensate Polishers (2 Units) Upgrade of Underdrain $75,000


Laterals

1987 Condensate Polishers (2 Units) Upgrade Controls and $75,000


Instrumentation

1990 New Chemical Control Instrumentation and Monitors $700,000


(5 Units), Includes Most EPRI Core” Parameters

1990 Makeup Demineralizers (1 Station) Conductivity and Flow $50,000


Instrumentation

1991 Makeup Demineralizers (1 Station) Conductivity and Flow $50,000


Instrumentation

1993 Automate Makeup Water Additions and New Ammonia $480,000


Feed Systems (3 Units)

1994 Makeup Demineralizers (2 Stations) Upgrade Controls $240,000

1995 Condensate Polisher (1 Unit) Upgrade Controls and $350,000


Instrumentation

1994-5 Install New Sodium Analyzers (6 Units) $220,000

Total $2,240,000

• cycle chemistry performance review and quality control,

• resin and carbon quality control,

• chemical cleaning quality control,

• discussion of progress on chemistry related action items,

• identification of new chemistry-related issues requiring action, and

• definition and assignment of action items for the next quarter.

A-16
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Meeting attendance is open to station and corporate personnel. Management,


operations and technical disciplines are normally represented at the meetings and
actively participate in resolution of problems involving station chemistry programs and
water treatment. Maintenance personnel are not directly involved in the Cycle
Chemistry Meetings. However, station priorities for reliability of sampling systems,
instrumentation, chemical feed systems and related facilities have been attained by
close communication with station personnel responsible for these tasks.

Future plans call for improvement of water chemistry data collection and maintenance
capabilities. This will be accomplished in conjunction with efforts to upgrade and
integrate computer systems at the stations. These improvements will result in faster
unit response, better unit control and slight reductions in operator manpower
requirements. Work will, of course, be performed during the course of major outages.
Installation of new state-of-the-art computers on the once-through boiler units is
scheduled for the spring of 1996 with similar upgrading of technology on the drum
boiler units planned for future years. The system network - when completed - will allow
Utility B personnel direct access to real time and historical unit chemistry data via the
network. Customary software will be provided to allow typical data management
functions such as sorting, plotting, trending and statistical analysis.

Performance Indices Development

Technical performance at Utility B is based on the ability of each unit to maintain


selected chemistry parameters within applicable control limits and action levels. As
examples, Tables B.4, Cycle Chemistry Limits, B.5, Operating Level Definitions, and B.6,
Cycle Chemistry Performance Definitions, illustrate the approach taken in low pressure
drum boiler units without condensate polishers at Station B1.

Similar definitions are applied to other units in the system. Unit-specific cycle
chemistry limits were determined by a review of historical operating data, original
equipment manufacturer guidelines and the generic EPRI guidelines 5. Where historical
data indicated performance equal to or better than the generic EPRI limits, no changes
were made. If the EPRI “core” parameter limits were being exceeded, root cause
analysis and permanent corrective actions were undertaken. Operator action-level
definitions in use are consistent with the EPRI guidelines. During the period of CCIP
participation, cycle chemistry performance was based on evaluation of a single daily
reading. In general, performance determined in this way was representative of
chemistry control during periods of sustained unit operation. Future plans to integrate
chemistry surveillance and data management capabilities into the new plant computer
systems will allow further improvement in the measurement of technical performance.

A-17
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table B.4 Station B1, Units B1- 4, 5, and 6


Summary Of Cycle Chemistry Limits

Constituent Normal Action Level 1 Action Level 2 Action Level 3

BOILERWATER (1800 psig)

Chloride ppm <2.3 2.3 to 4.5 4.5 to 9.0 >9.0


Silica ppm <0.5 0.5 to 0.9 0.0 to 1.8 >1.8
Phosphate ppm <5.0 5.0 to 12.0 12.0 to 20.0 >20.0
pH 9.3 to 9.5 <9.3 or >9.5 --- <8.0*

FEEDWATER

pH 8.8 to 9.3 <8.8 or >9.3 -- <8.0


Cation Conduct. uS/cm <0.5 0.5 to 0.7 0.7 to 1.2 >1.2
Deaerator Inlet 02 ppb <20.0 >20.0 -- --
Deaerator Outlet 02 ppb <7.0 7.0 to 10.0 10.0 to 20.0 >20.0
Hydrazine ppb 20.0 to 40.0 <20.0 -- --
MAIN STEAM

Cation Conduct. uS/cm <0.5 0.5 to 0.7 0.7 to 1.2 >1.2

* If boilerwater pH drops below 8.0, the unit is to be removed from service immediately.

Table B.5 Station B1 Operating Level Definitions

A. EPRI Maximum Annual Exposure to Contaminant Conditions

Cumulative Hours Per Year

Targets Base Load Cycling

Normal -- --

Action Level 1 336 (2 weeks) 672 (4 weeks)

Action Level 2 48 (2 days) 96 (4 days)

Action Level 3 8 16

Immediate Shutdown 1 2

A-18
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

B. Action Levels

The EPRI Interim Consensus Cycle Chemistry Guidelines Utilize an Action Level
system to correct parameter excursions from normal operating ranges. The normal
and action levels are defined as follows:

Normal: Range consistent with recommended limits.

Action Level 1: There is a potential for the accumulation of contaminants and


corrosion. Return values to normal levels within one week.

Action Level 2: The accumulation of impurities and corrosion will occur. Return
values to normal levels within 24 hours.

Action Level 3: Experience indicates that rapid corrosion could occur, which can
be avoided by shutdown of the unit within 4 hours.

Normal cycle chemistry parameters are based on an operating pressure of 1800 psig for
Units B1-4,5 and 6. Units B1-4,5 and 7 have the ability of returning from an action level
for boilerwater and steam cycle chemistry parameters by reducing the steam drum
pressure in accordance with the curves developed for silica and chloride.

Table B.6
Station B1 Cycle Chemistry Performance Definitions

Rating Definition

Excellent All cycle chemistry parameters met EPRI guidelines.

Good One cycle chemistry parameter did not meet EPRI guidelines.

Average Two cycle chemistry parameters did not meet EPRI guidelines.

Fair Three cycle chemistry parameters did not meet EPRI guidelines.

Poor Four or more cycle chemistry parameters did not meet EPRI
guidelines.

NOTE: Whenever a cycle chemistry parameter exceeds the amount of time allowed under any
action level, it does not meet EPRI guidelines. For each cycle chemistry parameter that exceeds
the amount of time allowed in an action level and continues to operate in that action level,
another exceedance will be assessed. For example, deaerator outlet dissolved oxygen greater
than 20 ppb for 8 hours is equal to two cycle chemistry parameters that did not meet EPRI
guidelines.

A-19
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Tables B.7 and B.8 depict quarterly performance summaries for the units at B1 and B2
Stations for early 1995. Daily readings consistently meet limits for normal operation in
all units. Comparison of the results for Unit No. 6 in Tables B.1 and B.7 clearly
demonstrate improved technical performance over the period 1990-1995.
Table B.7
Quarterly Performance Summary For Units At Station B1

Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7

Overall Chemistry Performance

Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Performance by Chemistry Parameter

Boilerwater

Chloride ppm Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Silica ppb Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Phosphate ppm Excellent Excellent Excellent N/A

pH Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Specific Conductivity N/A N/A N/A Excellent


uS/cm

Feedwater

pH Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Cation Conductivity uS/cm Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Deaerator Inlet 02 ppb Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Deaerator Outlet 02 ppb Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Hydrazine ppb Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Main Stream

Cation Conductivity uS/cm Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

NOTES: N/A=Not Available

A-20
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table B.8
Quarterly Performance Summary For Units At Station B2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Overall Chemistry Performance

Excellent Excellent

Performance by Chemistry Parameter

Feedwater (Economizer Inlet)

pH Excellent Excellent
Cation Conductivity uS/cm Excellent Excellent
Deaerator Inlet O2 ppb Excellent Excellent
Deaerator Outlet O2 ppb Excellent Excellent
Hydrazine ppb Excellent Excellent

Main Steam*

Cation Conductivity uS/cm N/A N/A

NOTE: N/A - Not Available

* New high pressure valves and sample tubing were installed during February, 1995 for the
main steam sample lines on Units 1&2. Unit 2 main steam sample line was put into service
during March, 1995 but was removed from service because it was too close to computer
wiring. The wiring is being relocated and the sample line is expected to be in service by June
1,1995. The main steam cation conductivity analyzers will be available for service by
June 1,1995.

Cost benefit analysis has always been an integral factor when assessing changes in
equipment and procedures at Utility B Plants. The same approach has been taken with
respect to cycle chemistry. Management philosophy with respect to chemistry has been
to support those improvement activities which can be cost justified in accordance with
chemistry-specific criteria.

Both direct and indirect cost savings have been realized as a result of cycle chemistry
improvement efforts at the B1 and B2 stations. These are outlined in the following
tables:

A-21
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Station B1, Units B1- 4,5 and 6, Cost Reductions

Direct Cycle chemistry-related Costs

• Eliminated addition of sodium sulfate and sodium sulfite, and reduced use of
trisodium phosphate by 75 percent, disodium phosphate by 75 percent and caustic
flake by 100 percent. These reductions were primarily attributed to changing from a
modified congruent phosphate treatment used in the 1950’s, to a standard congruent
phosphate treatment.

• Reduced wear and tear on chemical injection pumps and demineralizer regeneration
equipment. These reductions were primarily attributed to improved cleanliness of
the condensate and feedwater due to the elimination of condenser leaks. This results
in less blowdowns, less need for makeup and, therefore, less regenerations.

• Reduced make-up demineralizer regeneration chemicals (sulfuric acid and sodium


hydroxide) by 50 percent and reduced make-up demineralizer resin replacement by
50 percent. Rational for these reductions is the same as above.

• Decreased boiler chemical cleaning frequency from 2 to 4 years. This improvement is


primarily attributed to better control of cycle chemistry limits resulting in less
preboiler corrosion product generation, transport and deposition of same in the
boiler. All because of correcting condenser leaks and poor deaeration problems.

• Reduced demineralized water production by 50 percent and reduced city water and
wastewater treatment costs. See reasons given above.

Indirect Cycle chemistry-related Costs

• Reduced forced outage from condenser leaks and boiler tube failures from
underdeposit corrosion by 100 percent, i.e. from 4% to zero.

• Reduced condenser leaks and improved heat rate by reducing boiler blowdown by
50 percent. Reduced hotwell overboarding by 100 percent.

A-22
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Station B1, Unit B1-7 Cost Reductions

Direct Cycle chemistry-related Costs

• Reduced wear and tear on all demineralizer regeneration equipment. Replaced


condenser in 1983. Improvements are for the same reasons given for Units B1-4, -5
and -6 above.

• Reduced make-up demineralizer regeneration chemicals (sulfuric acid and sodium


hydroxide) by 50 percent. Reduce make-up demineralzier resin replacement by 50
percent. Same reasons given for Units B1-4, -5 and -6 above.

• Reduced condensate polisher demineralizer regeneration chemicals (sulfuric and


sodium hydroxide) by 50 percent. Reduced condensate polisher demineralizer resin
replacement by 50 percent. Same reasons given for Units B1-4, -5 and-6 above.

• Decreased boiler chemical cleaning frequency from 3 to 6 years. Same reasons given
for Units B1-4, -5 and -6 above.

• Reduced demineralized water production by 50 percent and reduced city water and
wastewater treatment costs. Same reasons given for Units B1-4, -5 and -6 above.

Indirect Cycle chemistry-related Costs

• Reduces forced outages from condenser leaks by 100 percent, improving availability
by more than 3.0 percent.

• Reduced condenser leaks and improved heat rate by reducing boiler blowdown by
50 percent.

Station B2, Units B2-1 and -2 Cost Reductions

Direct Cycle chemistry-related Costs

• Reduced wear and tear on all demineralizer regeneration equipment. Replaced


condensers in 1985 and 1986. Improvements are for the same reasons given for Units
B1-4, -5 and -6 above.

• Reduced make-up demineralizer regeneration chemicals (sulfuric acid and sodium


hydroxide) by 50 percent and reduced make-up demineralizer resin replacement by
50 percent.* Same reasons given for Units B1-4, -5 and -6 above.

A-23
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

• Reduced condensate polisher demineralizer regeneration chemicals (sulfuric and


sodium hydroxide) by 50 percent and reduced condensate polisher demineralizer
resin replacement by 50 percent.* Same reasons given for Units B1-4, -5 and -6
above.

• Decreased boiler chemical cleaning frequency from 3 to 6 years.* Same reasons given
for Units B1-4, -5 and -6 above.

• Reduced demineralized water production by 50 percent and reduced city water and
wastewater treatment costs. Same reasons given for Units B1-4, -5 and -6 above.

*Further performance improvements are anticipated following conversion to


oxygenated treatment

Indirect Cycle chemistry-related Costs

• Reduced forced outages from condenser leaks by 100 percent, improving availability
by more than 3.0 percent.

Although actual dollar cost savings associated with these improvements could not be
published, it is felt that the table listings will provide other utility personnel with an
understanding of the areas where savings may be realized.

Concerns/Problems and Recommendations

Overall, Utility B experienced minimal concerns or problems as result of EPRI CCIP


participation. In large measure, this is attributed to the change in management
philosophy and subsequent facility upgrades and chemistry limit revisions based on
EPRI guidelines which had occurred prior to formal participation in the program.

Due to the relatively short period of participation in CCIP, Utility B was not able to
complete some projects initiated in the period 1993 to 1995. This is a reflection of outage
schedule limitations rather than a lack of management commitment or funding
availability.

Due to travel budget restrictions, personnel from Utility B were not able to attend
annual meetings of the CCIP Utility Coordinators. As a result, opportunities for
exchange of useful ideas with other companies having similar interests were lost. To the
extent possible, this was compensated for by information transfer and support from
EPRI Project Team members.

Utility B personnel found formal participation in EPRI’s CCIP to be a rewarding


experience. Not only were the decisions made and implemented in the early 1990’s
reinforced as being appropriate actions consistent with industry wide preferred
A-24
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

practices, but additional opportunities to further improve station-specific programs


were identified and implemented. Monitoring of technical and cost performance using
the new unit computers will continue to be improved, and cost benefit analyses to
justify chemistry-related improvements will continue to be applied during future
station operations.

Utility C

Scope of Participation

Factors which motivated Utility C to join EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project included
recent experiences with chemistry-related availability problems in older units, reliance
on operators for chemistry program administration, and the desire to improve
management awareness. All plants participated in the project and supplemental plant-
specific operator training was provided.

Utility C is an electric and gas utility. It operates eight coal-fired electric generating
stations, with a combined capability of 2940 MW from 18 individual units. These units
range in age from about ten to more than 40 years; all have drum boilers with a
pressure range of 1100 to 2500 psig. Equilibrium phosphate(EPT) chemistry is used in
all plants. No units have condensate polishers.

Program/Progress Review

Implementation of a formalized Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program(CCIP) for


Utility C consisted of five primary activities:

• develop cost-driven performance criteria and core analytical parameters for


measuring cycle chemistry improvement, consistent with EPRI’s CCIP
demonstration project being conducted under RP 2712-11,

• establish tools and procedures as necessary for use by generating station personnel,

• develop a capital budget for improving on-line cycle chemistry instrumentation in


generating stations,

• conduct training of generating station personnel at all levels on the goals of the
program and the process employed to achieve the goals, and to

• develop and implement a reporting mechanism to provide feedback to station


personnel regarding program performance.

A-25
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Commitment and support for Utility C’s CCIP was immediately established at all levels
of Electric Production management, largely as a result of immediate commitment from
the Vice President. The importance of universal buy-in cannot be overstressed; it is a
necessary factor in achieving program goals and in obtaining the necessary capital
budget.

The development of essential program elements was substantially completed by the


end of 1992. Since that time, implementation of capital budgets and reporting of results
have been the primary activities. Progress on the implementation of the five primary
elements of Utility C’s CCIP program are described under the appropriate sections of
this report.

Table C.1 lists the “core” cycle chemistry parameters which are considered essential to
monitor cycle chemistry improvement. Ideally, continuous, on-line monitoring would
be utilized for many key parameters; over the course of this program, capital
expenditures will expand and improve the ability to acquire data in this manner.
Table C.1
“CORE” Cycle Chemistry Process Control Parameters

PARAMETER LOCATION PARAMETER LOCATION

Cation Conductivity CPD Sodium CPD

Economizer Inlet Economizer Inlet

Hot Reheat Steam* Hot Reheat Steam*

Superheat Steam* Superheat Steam*

Dissolved Oxygen CPD Silica Hot Reheat Steam*

Economizer Inlet Superheat Steam*

Copper CPD Phosphate Boiler Blowdown*

BFP Suction Downcomer*

Economizer Inlet

Iron CPD pH Boiler Blowdown*

Economizer Inlet Downcomer*

* (or) ,CPD - Condensate Pump Discharge

A-26
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Tools and Procedures

A variety of materials were prepared for the use of operating personnel, then combined
with written procedures into manuals. Action levels for each parameter were recorded
on charts such as the example in Figure C.1. A key, Figure C.2, was also included to
generally describe the various action levels. Limits and action levels were derived from
review of unit historical data and comparing it to the generic limits listed in the EPRI
guidelines5. If historical performance was equal to or better than listed in the EPRI
guidelines, no changes were made. Boiler water

Figure C.1 Parameter / Action Level Chart for pH

A-27
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure C.2 Action Level Definitions

chemistry limits were determined for each unit using the rationale described in EPRI’s
guidelines for phosphate treatment of drum units3. In each water test station, a framed
chart was hung on the wall to provide an immediate reference for operating personnel.
The impact and effectiveness of these charts derives from extensive use of color coding,
which is somewhat difficult to illustrate in the black and white figures. Green, yellow,
orange, and red were selected for action levels to signify increasingly critical
circumstances. Also, chart titles, index tabs, and diagrams for each system were
assigned a unique color, creating a visual link between the various resources for that
system. The result is an attractive system of charts that is easy to interpret and use.

A-28
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Capital Budget

Utility C received approval for a $700,000.00 capital budget for the Cycle Chemistry
Improvement Program (CCIP).

Justification: The capital budget was justified as part of the overall CCIP. The Program
was sold to the Vice-President on the basis of future savings from avoided forced
outages due to boiler tube failures, lost generation/ capacity due to turbine deposition
problems, etc.

This sum was spent over a three year period, beginning in 1993. Based on an evaluation
of the greatest opportunity for benefit, all 1993 funds were directed toward a single,
350 MW unit . An entire new sample panel was installed on this unit to permit
isokinetic sampling and continuous monitoring of the “core” parameters listed in Table
C.1. The bulk of 1994 capital funds were directed toward Utility C’s newest generating
station, a single, 500 MW unit . This unit has experienced troubling turbine deposition
during 10 years of operation; thus isokinetic steam sampling systems, an on-line ion
chromatograph, and upgraded instrumentation (7 cation conductivity and 4 pH
recorders) were the focus of the capital expenditures. Approximately one third of the
original budget was spent in 1995. These funds were shared among the remaining
generating stations, according to Utility C’s resource allocation process.

Reporting System

The system of reports was developed to graphically communicate two important types
of information to station management. First, there are graphs for each of the core
parameters for each unit, with emphasis on both current performance and recent trends.
The second type of information is management-related, for instance, percent of time
within limits or percent of analyses completed by operating personnel. To facilitate
reporting, data from each operator test station is transmitted at the end of each month
to a clerk. The data is transferred to a spread sheet program on a personal computer
and from there into a graphics package. Figures C.3, C.4, and C.5 are examples of charts
of core parameters for boiler chemistry data. Each chart presents the control limits, or
target range, for that parameter as a shaded area, plus the actual data for the month.
Each monthly report also contains a variety of overview charts, such as percentage of
tests within established limits and percentage of tests completed. Trending is another
important component of management reporting. The chart in Figure C.6 reflects the
percentage of data “in control” for all participating generating stations. This data is
maintained for individual units and plants, as well.

A-29
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure C.3 Boiler Water Chemistry Chart - pH

Figure C.4 Boiler Water Chemistry Chart - Phosphate

A-30
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure C.5 Boiler Water Chemistry Chart - Silica

Figure C.6 System-Wide % of pH Tests Recorded

A-31
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

A typical monthly report contains about 20 pages of charts and tabular data for each
unit. Annual summary reports are also submitted, which are substantially larger.

A second type of trending chart is shown in Figure C.7. This chart reflects the
percentage of completed tests for the period, by comparison to a standard number of
samplings. The standard is calculated as two samplings per eight hour shift when the
unit is in service.

Performance Indices Development

Performance criteria were developed in detail for four general areas of concern:

• Direct chemistry-related costs, such as treatment chemicals, ion exchange


regeneration, service contracts, and chemical cleaning.

• Indirect cycle chemistry costs, such as tube failures, turbine blade failure, startup
delays, load reduction and forced outages.

• Efficiency losses, such as those resulting from turbine deposits, heat exchanger
deposits and excessive boiler blowdown.

• Reduced service life of waterwall, condenser, economizer, reheater and superheater


tubes.

Examples of CCIP Benefits, Costs, Programmatic and Technical Developments

While performance criteria are stated in terms of dollars saved, the two previous
Figures (C.6 & C.7) demonstrate an immediate, intangible benefit of the program. As
the Operations personnel became aware that their daily tests were the subject of
scrutiny, they immediately began to improve their control of system chemistry.
Figure C.8 is a graph of availability losses due to silica holds showing dramatic
improvement over the past two years. Figure C.9 similarly reflects the improvement in
availability losses from boiler tube failures; these improvements are a shared result of
this program and Utility C’s Boiler Tube Failure Reduction Program. Another benefit
which can be measured immediately is the reduction of direct chemical costs. Figure
C.10 shows annual chemical expenditures for cooling tower treatments, boiler and
feedwater treatments, and ion exchange regenerations. The improvements are
dramatic, considering that Utility C had already realized substantial savings in the
years prior to this study by opening all treatment programs to competitive bidding.

A-32
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure C.7 - System-wide Actual Number of Tests Recorded

Figure C.8 Megawatt Hours Lost System-Wide From Silica

A-33
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure C.9 System-Wide Waterwall/Economizer Tube Failures

Figure C.10 Annual Water Treatment Chemical Costs

A-34
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Problem/Concerns and Recommendations

Utility C’s intention is to eventually express the benefits of the Cycle Chemistry
Improvement Program in terms of dollars saved, rather than more ambiguous
measures, such as unit availability and reduced opportunity costs. Some of the
conversions are straight forward; however, it is believed that the necessary
assumptions should be developed jointly by several utilities to improve uniformity and
credibility.

Utility C was also a participant in EPRI’s Boiler Tube Failure Reduction (BTFR)
Program4 demonstration project and, coexistent with its CCIP, has an in-house BTFR
Program. Unfortunately this program is being run by a separate department and the
synergistic benefits of a combined CCIP/BTFR program, such as single source program
management and responsibility, emphasized company rather than departmental goals,
combined resources, and the integration of the training are not being realized. It is felt
that a stronger link should be created between a CCIP program and, where they exist,
other in-house availability/performance improvement programs, such that the
maximum synergistic benefits can be realized.

Utility D

Scope of Participation

The EPRI Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program was implemented at two plants
during the spring of 1992 (Plants D1 and D2 - totaling 4580 MW) following an extensive
utility training program. These two plants are the largest in the system. Although
chemistry-related problems are relatively minor at these two facilities, the desire to
keep up with new developments is recognized. Where appropriate, information and
concepts gained through project participation have been applied at other plants within
Utility D’s system. Plant D1 uses river water for plant makeup while Plant D2 uses well
water. The two plants encompass ten operating units: four drum boilers, each with
operating pressures of 2570 psig, and six once-through (5 supercritical, 1 subcritical)
boilers. Chemistries used in the plants include equilibrium phosphate (EPT) for the
drum units and oxygenated treatment (OT) for the once-through units. All the once-
through units have all-ferrous feedwater heaters. All drum units have mixed
metallurgy feedwater heaters. All once-through units have condensate polishers; there
are none on the drum units. Additional details of both plants are indicated below.

Utility D’s main objective for participating in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project was to
evaluate and implement, where appropriate, the most cost effective water quality
chemistry, process and monitoring equipment, and treatment practices available to
ensure reliable service.

A-35
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Program Implementation Materials

Utility D’s CCIP was implemented following an extensive cycle chemistry training
session conducted by EPRI. The training was composed of four (4) different modules
specifically designed for operating, maintenance, technical and management personnel.
The modules presented controllable activities that influence cycle chemistry from the
perspective of each group. Each student was provided a training manual to use as a
reference. Along with the training manual, several forms were developed at various
points during the demonstration project to facilitate the logging and tracking of cycle
chemistry parameters, unit availability, unit performance, component loss of life and
direct costs. These forms are shown later.

Program Implementation Methodology

The basic components of this project included cycle chemistry core parameter data
acquisition, cycle chemistry related loss data recording, and cycle chemistry direct- cost
recording. The forms indicated above were developed to provide the means to obtain
and reduce the needed data. When the project began, the operators were asked to
manually record core cycle chemistry parameters each hour and determine the
percentage of data within limits for each day. The manual data acquisition method
recorded only one(1) data point each hour for each parameter. A computerized data
acquisition system was later installed as a more accurate method of recording cycle
chemistry data and determining the percentage of time within limits. The computerized
data acquisition method recorded one(1) data point each minute. These points were
then used to determine the percentage of time in limits as well as producing hourly and
daily averages. As operators are asked to assume more quick-response capability to
defining and correcting cycle chemistry upsets and operating problems, and because of
reductions in on-site chemistry support to reduce operating costs in the competitive
environment, enhancing these data acquisition systems with user-friendly expert
system capability will become more economically attractive.

Program/Progress Review

Operational

Utility D feels that one of the most critical elements of a good cycle chemistry program
is the development and use of cycle chemistry limits, action levels and corrective
operating procedures for critical process parameters. Prior to the demonstration project,
Utility D developed these items in 1988 using CS-4629, EPRI’s “Interim Consensus
Guidelines on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry”5. These items have been in use since that
time. Using these limits as a guide, Utility D determined, by operating measurements,
which limits its units could meet or do better, and those limits the units could not meet.
For those parameter limits that the units could do better, these limits were changed as
A-36
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

appropriate. For those limits that the units could not meet, new “best achievable” limit
values were set by Utility D corporate/plant chemical personnel. Action levels for all
parameters were derived using the methodology presented in CS-4629. Specific limits,
action levels and corrective procedures are in place for each unit in Utility D’s system.
They are reviewed and modified as necessary on an annual basis.

Utility D chemical personnel realize that unit-specific limits for sodium and cation
conductivity of the main- and reheat-steam (critical “core” parameters listed in Table 1.1
in Section 1) should be determined using the methodologies presented in the training
Manual6 or the latest EPRI guidelines on phosphate treatment of drum units3 and
oxygenated treatment of once-through units1, but economic constraints have prevented
running the tests to determine these limits during the duration of this demonstration
project.

An additional tool developed for this demonstration was the Cycle Chemistry Event
Report. This one page report provides a concise description of any Action Level 2 or 3
cycle chemistry condition along with any availability loss, performance loss or loss of
component life due to the cycle chemistry condition. If desired, the report can also be
distributed to key individuals within the organization to keep them informed of major
cycle chemistry upsets. The report could also be used to track minor cycle chemistry
events such as instrument or equipment malfunction. An example of this report is
shown in Figure D.1.

Technical Modifications and Equipment Upgrades

Several chemistry control modifications and equipment upgrades were made during
the demonstration. Since the demonstration was relatively short, the implemented
improvements were those that provided the greatest benefit in the shortest period of
time. Numerous improvements were made at each plant. The most notable are listed
below.

• Converted three once-through units at Plant D2 and three once-through units at


Plant D1 from all-volatile treatment (AVT) to oxygenated treatment (OT) using EPRI
guidelines1.

Justification: Justification for these conversions was based primarily on reduced


regeneration costs, a reduced frequency of boiler chemical cleanings and lower
chemical cleaning waste removal charges.

• Converted four high-pressure drum boilers at Plant D2 from coordinated phosphate


treatment (CPT) to equilibrium phosphate treatment (EPT) using EPRI guidelines3.

Justification: Justification for these conversions was based on minimizing the


probability of boiler tube failures due to acid phosphate corrosion because of boiler
A-37
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

phosphate hideout and return problems resulting in large swings in pH during


operation.

• Installed a reverse osmosis (RO) application at Plant D2 to replace two primary


cation and primary anion makeup demineralizers.

Justification: Justification for this conversion was based on economics. Operating


costs of makeup in terms of $/1000 gallons was very high with the present primary
cation/anion makeup demineralizers. Bids were put out on alternative reverse
osmosis system options, i.e. outright purchase of an RO system, a lease of an RO
system with an option to purchase, or a water purchase contract. The lease with
option to purchase an RO system was selected because of lower projected
$/1000 gallon operating costs.

• Installed sodium analyzers on each unit’s condensate pump discharge and main
steam sample streams at Plant D2.

Justification: Justification was based on future avoided forced outage costs due to
turbine blade failures experienced on a large unit due to sodium carryover in the
main steam.

• Replaced/upgraded various pH, conductivity and silica analyzers at both plants.

Justification: Justification for the pH, conductivity and silica analyzers was based on a
general upgrading due to high maintenance costs, poor accuracy and reliability of
same.

• Installed continuous hydrazine and phosphate analyzers on Units 1-4 at Plant D2.

Justification: Justification of the hydrazine and phosphate analyzers on Units 1-4 at


Plant D2 was to reduce labor costs. These continuous analyzers eliminated the need
for intermittent analysis by laboratory personnel and a subsequent reduction in
laboratory staffing requirements.

Analytical Instrumentation and Data Management

Another critical element of an effective cycle chemistry program is reliable analytical


instrumentation and data acquisition. Operating a unit without these two key
components is like driving a car while wearing a blindfold. While the units at the D2
and D1 Plants have traditionally been adequately equipped with on-line cycle
chemistry monitoring instrumentation, many of these instruments had analog outputs
and needed to be upgraded. The acquisition and reduction of cycle chemistry data into
a format that makes problem recognition easy are also important to good cycle
chemistry. At the beginning of the demonstration, the plants were not equipped with a

A-38
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

computerized data acquisition system (DAS). During this period, the operators were
asked to manually record core cycle chemistry parameters each hour from on-line
instrumentation and determine the percentage of time within limits for each day. A
unit-specific one page log was developed for this purpose with the limits and action
levels listed on the back. The daily percentage of time within limits for each parameter
was then put into a computer spreadsheet and a monthly average was calculated. A
computerized DAS was later installed as a more accurate method of recording cycle
chemistry data and determining percentage of time within limits. With the
computerized DAS, readings from core cycle chemistry parameters were collected each
minute. This data was used to calculate percentage of time within limits along with
hourly and daily averages. The DAS was leased from Nalco and was comprised of
Logic Beach data logging equipment and Nalco’s Trendcheck® statistical process
control data management program to reduce and evaluate the data. The DAS also
helped in diagnosing and successfully resolving a severe phosphate hideout problem
that was occurring in Units 1-4 at the D2 Plant. Before the installation of the DAS, the
plant was equipped with boiler water pH meters and a multipoint pH recorder. The
recorder plotted pH readings from several pH meters. While the plots were identified
by numbers, they were printed in the same color ink. Since the pH range of all the
points was similar, the plots were all in one small area. This made the recognition of pH
excursions due to phosphate hideout impossible. The DAS possessed the ability to plot
individual and dual data points that clearly indicated the phosphate hideout problem.
Once the problem was realized, the cycle chemistry was changed from congruent
phosphate treatment (CPT) to equilibrium phosphate treatment (EPT) and the pH
excursions were reduced.

Steam Path Audits*

Another tool that can be very valuable in diagnosing cycle chemistry problems is the
steam path audit. The steam path audit provides a detailed listing of performance losses
from the many components in the steam turbine. The performance losses most affected
by cycle chemistry are the losses attributed to deposits and the losses due to damage
from corrosion of components. The audit essentially pinpoints exactly where these
losses are occurring so that more detailed analyses can be made to determine the
root-cause. The audit also provides a quantitative cost estimate of each loss category which can
be used to justify the modifications or equipment upgrades that are necessary to eliminate the
loss. In Utility D’s plants, steam path audits are performed during each major turbine
overhaul by engineers within the organization. A recent audit conducted on D1 Unit 2
revealed a loss due to deposits of approximately $3,000,000 per year. The deposit was
ultimately found to be due to malfunctioning filters in the makeup demineralizer
pretreatment systems. These filters had lost their capacity to remove 0-40µm particles
that adhered to the turbine blades causing the deposit.

* See Appendix B for more information on steam path audits.

A-39
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Performance Indices Development

Technical and cost performance indices used during the demonstration included
percentage of lab and on-line instrument data within limits, steam path audit results,
availability and performance losses, and component loss of life. Laboratory and on-line
instrument data are compared daily to published limits and action levels. Steam path
audit results are compared to previous audit data and design criteria to determine
abnormal conditions. A form or means to record this data is shown in Figure D.1, Cycle
Chemistry Event Report. Instructions for filling out this report are listed in Figure D.2,
Instructions for the Cycle Chemistry Event Report. If loss increases are noted, action is
taken to determine the root-cause and a correction is installed. An example of the form
for recording availability losses in MWhr, heat rate impact in BTU/KWhr, and
reduction in component life in Years due to cycle chemistry events, is shown in
Figure D.3, Cycle Chemistry Losses. It should be noted that Utility D participated in an
EPRI Boiler Tube Failure (BTF) Reduction Program demonstration project4 in the late
1980’s. Since that time, there have been no BTF’s at the D2 and D1 plants resulting from
a failure mechanism activated by poor cycle chemistry. Direct-costs of cycle chemistry
activities at Plants D1 and D2 for the last several years were also recorded during the
demonstration. These costs were categorized and are listed in Tables D.1 and D.2, Cycle
Chemistry Improvement Program(CCIP), Operating Cost Data, for plants D1 and D.2
respectively. According to this data, the most noted direct-cost saving was from
converting the once-through units to Oxygenated Treatment which resulted in a
substantial reduction in sulfuric acid and caustic soda costs.

At Plant D1 the circulating water treatment costs were included in the study because of
the substantial cost to treat the house service water system which is a side stream of the
circulating water system. The circulating water system at this plant uses cycled-up
river water from the cooling tower. Plant D2’s house service water system is a closed
system that uses condensate as the makeup source. As indicated previously, deposit
formation on all the steam turbines at Plant D1 was reversed by upgrades to the plant’s
makeup demineralizer pretreatment system filters. A steam path audit on one of the
three turbines identified a loss of approximately $3,000,000 per year due to deposits.

At Plant D2 estimated annual plant savings range from $115,000 to $300,000 due to
replacing a portion of the makeup demineralizer with a reverse osmosis system,
converting the drum boilers to equilibrium phosphate treatment, installing automated
hydrazine injection systems on the drum boiler units,and installing phosphate and
hydrazine on-line analyzers. The estimated annual savings attributed to conversion of
the once-through units to oxygenated treatment is estimated at $500,000.

A-40
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure D.1 - Cycle Chemistry Event Report

A-41
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure D.2 - Instructions for Cycle Chemistry Event Report

A-42
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure D.3 - Cycle Chemistry Losses

A-43
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table D.1 - Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program


Cycle Chemistry Operating Costs - Plant D1

A-44
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table D.2 - Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program


Cycle Chemistry Operating Costs - Plant D.2

A-45
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Concerns/Problems and Recommendations

The following is a listing of various problems that were created as a result of


participating in the demonstration. Some of these problems were resolved during the
program while others were just tolerated without resolution.

Programmatic Issues

With the more competitive utility environment, justifying cycle chemistry equipment
and instruments is almost impossible. The criteria used to evaluate a project at Utility D
has been severely restricted to ensure solid cost reductions, not just inflated savings.
Consequently, only projects with short payback periods and rock solid savings are
approved.

While high availability remains important at Utility D, additional emphasis has been
placed on reducing forced outages. Unless documented forced outages due to cycle
chemistry are occurring, justifying cycle chemistry instrumentation or a user-friendly
data acquisition/expert system for technical and operational use to solve or prevent a
problem that may occur is difficult if not impossible.

With the work force reductions taking place in the utility industry, Utility D feels that
simpler, and less time-consuming methods of troubleshooting cycle chemistry problems
and evaluating water quality data need to be developed. Development of these
methods will have to take place outside the industry because of the reduced work force
levels.

Technical Issues

The information provided in recent EPRI manuals provided great assistance in


developing unit-specific cycle chemistry technologies. Utility D feels that more accurate
methods still need to be developed, however regarding when a boiler needs to be
chemically cleaned. The currently available technology does not go far enough in
accurately predicting when a chemical cleaning is necessary.

A good cycle chemistry program requires a continuous commitment by responsible


plant personnel to maintain the on-line instrumentation in proper working order and to
verify the proper operation of these instruments.

Performance Indices Issues

To facilitate this demonstration, good engineering judgment was used at utility D to


estimate much of the performance losses and component loss of life. This method

A-46
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

produces data that is too inaccurate to use as a basis for cycle chemistry economic
justifications. Better methods need to be developed to produce more accurate loss data.

Over the past several years, Utility D has made operating units with good cycle
chemistry a high priority. The ways in which the plants are instrumented and staffed
are indicative of this commitment. Participation in this demonstration also indicated the
company’s commitment to maintaining a cycle chemistry program that ensures reliable
operation of steam/water equipment for years to come. A key element of this
commitment is that all levels of plant and corporate management must take
responsibility for cycle chemistry. Responsibility for good cycle chemistry is a team
effort, and all levels of management need to be frequently involved, not just when
problems occur.

Utility E

Scope of Participation

Boiler tube failures (BTF), due to water chemistry-related corrosion and deposition
problems, in units at the largest fossil station in the system justified project participation
for Utility E. Both corporate and station management strongly supported the
programmatic approach of EPRI’s CCIP as a means of permanently reducing and
eliminating future BTF or other equipment problems involving cycle chemistry.

Project participation began with programmatic training in February, 1992. One plant
with two large fossil units (650 MW each) participated. Units have drum boilers, with
operating pressures of 2700 psig, and condensate polishers. Polisher valving is unique
in that both polishers can be used by either unit when necessary. Chemistry for both
units is equilibrium phosphate (EPT).

Program/Progress Review

Utility E has made significant progress in implementing many of the essential


programmatic aspects EPRI’s CCIP since project start in February, 1992.

Monitoring of “core” parameters

Prior to participation in EPRI’s demonstration project in February, 1992, Utility E had


already set limits and action levels, and was continuously monitoring the four “core”
cycle chemistry parameters of cation conductivity, sodium, pH and dissolved oxygen.
Operating limits and action levels were derived from a combination of operating
measurements and use of EPRI’s Interim Consensus Guidelines5. Where the limits
suggested by the EPRI guideline could be met or bettered by the operating units - new

A-47
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

lower limits were established by the plant chemist. Where the limits could not be set
lower than the EPRI guideline limits, the guideline limits were used.

By the year 2000 they have or plan to spend, for general instrument upgrading,
approximately $346,700 for additional analyzers (2 phosphate, 2 sodium and 5 silica),
conductivity monitors and cells (25), pH monitors and cells (5) and other laboratory
instruments.

Data gathering instruments

Approximately $7300 was spent for a recorder/data logger for Unit E-2 in 1992 (2/unit
are planned), with the intention of down-loading to a dedicated PC for analysis,
trending and report writing. This system is still not in use due to unresolved problems
with the interface between the plant computer and the data logger. Two additional
recorder/data loggers with PC’s at a cost of $26,000/unit are planned for 1997. A Nalco
Trendcheck program is currently being used, with manually entered data from
laboratory tests, for data storage and for generating graph and log reports on a weekly
or monthly basis (Examples are shown in Figures E.1 and E.2).

Justification: Justification for the recorder/data logger/dedicated PC systems was the


capability to generate timely cycle chemistry status reports using actual analyzer
outputs into the unit computer systems rather than intermittent laboratory wet tests.

Computers were installed in the control rooms of Units E-1 and E-2 in 1995. They have
been programmed to alarm chemistry action-level conditions. Operator responses still
remain to be developed, but due to the computer cycle chemistry alarms the operators
are now more aware and concerned with the chemistry of the units.

Operations

Since the beginning of the CCIP, several serious operating problems have been
successfully solved by simple changes in operating procedures. Examples are:

• Condenser Leakage

Station E used to have a lot a lot of condenser leaks resulting in lost generation. As a
solution, they have performed hydros of the condensers at each major unit outage
opportunity before start-up. Since they started the practice of hydroing the
condenser, the station has only experienced two small condenser leaks during the
last two years. Eddy current testing of both condensers was also performed in 1993.

A-48
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

• Condenser Cleaning

The plant has experienced a lot of problems with its Amertap condenser cleaning
system that was installed in 1986, i.e. trash pluggage and failure to remove scale. To
solve this situation, the plant has discontinued its Amertap operation, installed new
trash screens, and decided to chemically clean the condensers (one in 1996, the other
in 1998).

• Air In-leakage

The plant was having a serious air in-leakage problem, operating in the 20 to 30 cfs
range. Plant personnel worked with their engineering department to solve this
problem. Solution was due to: (a) installation of some new valves, (b) checkout and
maintenance of roto meters, (c) writing of a procedures manual by engineering(i.e.
on detection methodology, test locations, etc.), (d) the establishment of an air in-
leakage group that is involved in all aspects of air in-leakage problem solving and
personnel training, and(e) installation of a nitrogen-blanket system on the condensate
storage tanks of Unit E-2. Air in-leakage values have since decreased to 12-13 cfs on
Unit E-1 and to zero cfs on Unit E-2.

• Crud Loading on Start-ups

Initial plant operation had one full-flow Powdex condensate polisher for use on
start-ups and shutdowns of either unit. Regeneration was with Ecodex, a mixture of
cation and anion resins, and cellulose. This was good for crud removal during start-
ups and shutdowns but not very effective for condenser leaks. Late in 1993, a second
identical(selected for economy reasons) polisher was installed on Unit E-2, with the
additional feature of also being able to be valved to Unit E-1 when necessary. The plant
now had reserve polishing capability in case of a serious condenser leak or heavy
crud loading on start-ups.

Justification: Justification for the purchase of a second identical polisher was based on
the reduction and prevention of future boiler tube failures due to hydrogen damage,
reduced frequency of boiler chemical cleanings, staying in service longer when units
experience condenser leaks, and shorter startup times all because of being able to
maintain higher quality feedwater.

• Reducing Corrosion Product Inventory

High levels of dissolved oxygen have resulted in generating very high levels of
preboiler corrosion products, i.e. copper and iron, in Units E-1 and E-2. This high
level of preboiler corrosion product generation and transport to the boilers( as
evidenced by very high iron and copper removal during chemical cleanings) is the
principal crud contributor during unit start-ups, and the precursor to boiler tube

A-49
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

failures due to hydrogen damage or caustic gouging. To solve these corrosion-


product-related problems, Utility E not only waged war on finding and correcting
air in-leakage problems as described above, but also changed their start-up procedure to
hold off putting low- and high-pressure feedwater heaters into service until the unit had
reached 50-60% load or conductivity meters had returned to normal. This procedure
reduces the corrosion product inventory by directing corrosion products, trapped in
the feedwater heater extraction- and drain-lines during low-load operation, to the
condenser for removal by the condensate polishers.

Boiler Maintenance

Also, since the start of the CCIP Utility E has taken the following steps to improve
boiler circulation during chemical cleanings, and to correct a serious glycol leak
problem:

• Improved Recirculation During Chemical Cleanings

The downward drains on Unit E-2 were enlarged from 3 inches to 6 inches to
improve recirculation during chemical cleanings.

• Early Detection and Correction of Glycol Leaks

Three serious glycol leaks on the plant HVAC system were experienced. One was so
bad, and since it provides condensate for make-up to a condensate storage tank,
required that a unit be removed from service, drained and flushed before it could be
returned to service. Since the last experience, a glycol leak detection and diversion
system has been installed using cation and specific conductivity. In the summer of
1995, Utility E got an added bonus from this detection system in that it detected a
leak in the heat exchanger for the chillers, dumped some bad water and provided
early warning to a potentially serious problem.

Performance Indices Development

Utility E uses Nalco’s Trendcheck Program for generating graph and log reports on a
weekly and monthly basis. An example for control of boiler water pH is presented in
Figure E.1 - Nalco Specification Chart, Boiler Water pH, Unit E-1, and Figure E.2, Nalco
Process Capability Chart, Boiler Water pH, Unit E-1. In the cost performance indices
area, Utility E has reduced its cycle chemistry direct-costs approximately $198,000
annually by changing from a Cold-Lime softener to a Reverse Osmosis System for
make-up to the DI Train in the fall of 1988.

A-50
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Justification: Justification was based on projected reductions in plant acid and caustic
costs which were running about $17,000/month. Since the conversion in the fall of 1988,
total cumulative plant acid and caustic usage costs have not reached $17,000.

They have also taken a rather unique approach to estimating cycle chemistry indirect-
costs ,i.e. equipment availability and performance degradation losses, and subsequent
savings through improved cycle chemistry. These costs/benefits have been estimated as
avoided repeat forced-outages, equipment replacement costs and performance
degradation losses, to be realized in the future through improved cycle chemistry
processes and practices. Examples of this approach are listed under “Examples of CCIP
Benefits, Costs, Programmatic and Technical Developments”.

A-51
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

#* Identification Reading In Specification?

1 03-Apr-1995 9.35 YES

2 03-Apr-1995 9.31 YES

3 03-Apr-1995 N/A YES

4 04-Apr-1995 9.18 YES

5 04-Apr-1995 9.09 YES

6 04-Apr-1995 N/A YES

7 05-Apr-1995 8.99 NO

8 05-Apr-1995 9.19 YES

9 05-Apr-1995 N/A YES

10 06-Apr-1995 9.45 YES

* Data shown is for first 10 readings only to demonstrate program input

Figure E.1 Nalco Specification Chart, Unit E-1, Boiler Water pH

A-52
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Summary Statistics

Number of Readings 41 Average 9.627805


Minimum 8.99 Sigma(long-term) 0.209362
Maximum 9.94 Skewness -1.624560
Kurtosis 2.215813

Capability Statistics

USL - Upper Specification Limit 10.00


LSL - Lower Specification Limit 9.00
MSR - Middle of Specification Range 9.50
Cpk - Capability Index for Current Process 0.592585
Cpu - Capability Index Relative to USL 0.592585
Cpl - Capability Index Relative to LSL 0.999551
Cp - Capability Ratio for Centered Process 0.796068
Percentage of Readings Over USL 0.00
Percentage of Readings Below LSL 2.44
Percentage of Readings Outside Specifications 2.44
Percentage of Readings Outside Specifications 2.44

Figure E.2 Nalco Process Capability Chart, Unit E-1, Boiler Water

A-53
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Examples of CCIP Benefits, Costs, Programmatic and Technical Developments

Most of Utility E’s CCIP benefits, costs, programmatic and technical developments,
while participating in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project, are described below as
avoided equipment replacement costs. Overall availability and performance
improvements, through improved cycle chemistry and better operator awareness and
operating practices, are also supported by improvements shown in Figures E.3,
“Equivalent Availability Factor, E.1 Station”, and Figure E.4, “Unit Heat Rate, E.1
Station”, for the 1992-1994 operating period.

Avoided Equipment Replacement Costs

• Unit E-2 Arch Panel Replacement

Unit E-2 arch panel required replacement at a cost of $750,000 after only 11 years of
boiler operation. This premature replacement was because of boiler tube failures and
tubing damage due to hydrogen damage. Because of improved unit chemistry, i.e.
changing from a low phosphate(1-3 ppm) program to equilibrium phosphate
treatment (EPT), installation of PO4 analyzers, lower air in-leakage, better chemical
cleanings, improved operator awareness, etc., this boiler tube failure problem and its
subsequent premature arch panel replacement solution is not expected to be
repeated. This should result in at least 30 life for the replacement panel, therefore
avoiding a future arch panel replacement at a cost of $750,000 in only 11 years. This
results in a future projected savings of $43,000/yr, arrived at as follows:

Savings/yr = 750,000/11yrs - 750,000/30yrs = $43,000/yr

• Unit E-1, “B” String, HP Feedwater Heater Replacement

Because of a serious corrosion problem, the Unit E-1 “B” String HP feedwater
heaters ( Admiralty Material) have to be prematurely replaced at a cost of
$1,800,000. This replacement is scheduled for 1997, after only 17 years of service.
Because of improved cycle chemistry due to operator awareness and lower preboiler
corrosion due to lower levels of dissolved oxygen, the replacement feedwater
heaters are expected to last at least 30 years. This should result in future projected
savings of $46,000/yr, arrived at as follows:

Savings/yr = $1,800,000/17yrs - $1,800,000/30yrs = $46,000/yr

Also, there are fuel savings if the FW heaters can remain in service.

Savings/yr = $20,000/yr (based upon 12 additional outage days/year)

A-54
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

NOTE: It is recognized that all of the above equipment availability and performance
degradation losses are probably not due to water chemistry alone, but the examples do consider
future equipment (i.e. FW heaters, boiler tubing, etc.) which Utility E would most likely have to
replace again because of repeat corrosion and deposition problems, in less than 30 years of
service, if cycle chemistry and operating practices were left alone.

• Forced Outages due to Water-Chemistry-Related Boiler Tube Failures

In 1995, the plant had only one tube leak in a waterwall view port near the bottom of
the leading edge of the finishing superheater. The failure mechanism was hydrogen
damage. The Outage lasted 198 hours. Lost generation costs were not charged
because a precipitator cleaning outage had been planned. The cost to repair the leak
was $6577. During 1990-1991 15 water-chemistry-related(hydrogen damage) boiler
tube failures were experienced on Units E-1 and E-2 at repair and lost generation
costs of $150,198 and $1,050,014 respectively. Because of improvements in Plant E’s
cycle chemistry and operating practices, EPRI estimated that a plant availability
improvement of 1.5%/yr is possible. This equates to a projected annual savings of
$890,000, derived as follows:

Assuming a 1.5% increase in availability per unit (131 hrs/yr) is achievable, and
using a difference of $7/MWhr between generation and replacement power
costs:

Savings/Unit/yr = 131 hrs/yr x 630 MW(max. gen.) x 0.77(output factor) x


7$/MWhr = $445,000/yr (not including startup costs) or a plant savings of
$890,000/yr.

• Reduced Number of Boiler Chemical Cleanings

Because of serious pre-boiler corrosion product generation, transport and deposition


in the boiler, Utility E experienced many boiler tube failures due to activation of
hydrogen damage. To prevent and minimize the probability of repeat BTF’s due to
hydrogen damage, the boilers were being chemically cleaned every three years at a
total cost of $1,756,000. These costs include cleaning labor and material and outage
charges. By improving cycle chemistry and operating practices, pre-boiler corrosion
product generation, transport and deposition has decreased such that the period
between chemical cleanings has been extended from three to four years resulting in
projected annual savings of $143,000, derived as follows:

Savings/yr = (cleaning costs)/(3 yrs, old interval) - (cleaning costs)/(4 yrs,new


interval) = $146,333/yr

A-55
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Concerns, Problems and/or Recommendations

CCIP participation has resulted in both successes and setbacks at Station E.1 of Utility E.
Perhaps the most apparent benefit is the increased interest in chemistry shown by
Station management, staff and operating personnel. Recent cost cutting measures and
staff reorganization/reduction assessments within Utility E has limited CCIP
implementation progress. The capital projects budget for chemistry improvements in
1995 was cut but it was thought that some of the work will be approved for inclusion in
future budgets. This action has limited the ability of Utility E to show significant
progress in terms of achieving original CCIP goals following initial training of plant
personnel.

Figure E.3 - Equivalent Availability Factor, Station E.1

A-56
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure E.4 - Unit Heat Rate, Station E.1

Utility F

Scope of Participation

Utility F owns and operates three coal-fired and three gas-fired power plants with a
total system capacity of 5230 MW.

Utility F elected to have two plants participate in the EPRI Cycle Chemistry
Improvement Program (CCIP). Plant F1, a coal-fired plant, and Plant F2, a gas-fired
plant. Plant F1 has two 1800 psi units, with capacities of 88 and 148 MW, and is the
oldest coal-fired plant in the system. It has had a long history of cycle-chemistry- related
problems. Plant F2 has a 1900 psi unit with a capacity of 150 MW and a 2600 psi,
367 MW unit. Plant F2 was also selected because of a recent personnel change in the
plant lab. Utility F decided to focus its efforts and resources in establishing quality
Cycle Chemistry Improvement Programs (CCIP) at these two plants, as opposed to
establishing CCIPs in all of the plants which might be less effective or incomplete.

At the present time, Utility F is in the process of expanding the CCIP to include other
power plants in the system. The expanded CCIP will focus on upgrading
instrumentation, where needed; establishing control limits and action levels; holding
A-57
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

operator chemistry training sessions; and establishing operator response procedures for
chemistry upsets. The four plants covered under the expanded CCIP will probably not
spend as much time and effort as Plants F1 and F2, which are trying to formally
document savings and improvements in unit reliability. The primary purpose of Utility
F’s CCIP is to identify, correct, prevent and control cycle chemistry problems which
negatively impact unit availability. Utility F’s short-term CCIP goals are listed below.

Utility F’s CCIP Short-Term Goals

• Elimination of chemistry-related boiler tube failures.

• Extension of the interval between maintenance chemical cleaning of boilers by 50%


over the historical average for each unit, doing so with confidence that availability
and performance are not compromised.

• Reduction of time required to return a unit to service through optimization of


chemistries and procedures applied during shutdown, layup and startup.

Utility F’s CCIP Long-Term Goals

• Reduction of unit availability losses due to water chemistry problems.

• Installation of reliable on-line cycle chemistry instrumentation for all critical process
parameters.

• Reduce costs associated with cycle chemistry.

• A measurable reduction in turbine problems such as deposition, general corrosion


and stress corrosion cracking.

The initial CCIP training was conducted in January 1994 for both plants. The plant CCIP
teams were established one month later in February, 1994. Utility F has participated in
the CCIP for one year and nine months and has achieved some, and at least addressed
all remaining goals.

Program Implementation Methodology And Materials.

The first step in setting up the CCIP was to establish the plant teams. Both plant teams
included a representive from all of the plant departments: operations, maintenance,
instrument and controls, lab and plant management. Each individual brought their own
expertise to the team and each area of expertise was addressed to provide complete
program coverage. The CCIP teams reviewed existing operating and maintenance
procedures in terms of how they affect cycle chemistry.

A-58
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

The teams at each plant reviewed historical operating data and set achievable cycle
chemistry control limits and action levels for all of the “core” parameters. These limits
were compared to the generic limits of the EPRI interim Consensus Guidelines5. If the
limits in the EPRI guideline were being exceeded, the root causes were investigated to
determine whether or not it was cost effective to correct the problem to achieve lower
limits. If the units had no history of any cycle chemistry-related problems, the root
causes were not corrected and the unit-specific limits were set as discussed above. If
achievable limits were better than the EPRI guidelines, no action was taken to tighten
these limits. These parameters are monitored with continuous and reliable instruments
on the boiler and preboiler samples. The information from these analyzers provides
real-time data that the operator can use to control cycle chemistry within the control
limits.The operations and lab subgroups of the CCIP team established operator
response procedures for all of the cycle chemistry action levels. The operator response
procedures were setup to allow the operator to make the initial response to a cycle chemistry
upset situation. The plant lab personnel control the cycle chemistry under normal
conditions and the operators make the initial response to a cycle upset.

The CCIP team created an operator cycle chemistry training program. The operator
training program tried to focus on what the operator needs to know to be confident in
using the on-line chemistry analyzers to identify and respond to cycle chemistry
conditions, it was not intended to turn the operators into chemists. Every plant operator
attended a CCIP training session where the cycle chemistry control limits and action
levels were explained and the operator response procedures were presented. The
operators worked on several case studies during the training where they were asked to
respond to different chemistry upsets. An abbreviated version of the operator training
program was presented to the system dispatch supervisors to explain to them the
concepts of the CCIP. The System Dispatch has cooperated well with the plants under
the CCIP guidelines to protect the plant equipment. Operator response procedures to
Action Level 3 parameters require the operator to take the unit off line if the situation
can not be corrected, or at least improved, in 4 hours. Any time the operator finds himself
in or approaching an Action Level 3 situation, he is required to inform the System Dispatcher of
the situation.

One of the primary tasks of the plant teams was to evaluate the current status of the
plant's on-line chemical instrumentation. Each plant team determined what existing
chemical instrumentation was adequate, what instrumentation needed to be replaced
with something more reliable or more accurate, and what additional instrumentation
needed to be purchased to meet the core” requirements of the EPRI CCIP
demonstration project (see Table 1.1 in Section 1).

The teams also evaluated the existing sample conditioning systems. Consistent sample
temperature and flow is critical to obtaining reliable data from the on-line analyzers.
Both plants are in the process of making improvements in their sample conditioning
panels.

A-59
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Both plants plan to feed the analyzer outputs into data acquisition systems (DAS) so
that the operators will have immediate and continuous cycle chemistry information.
The DAS will indicate alarm situations when the data is outside of the control limits.

A historical record was also developed of boiler chemical cleanings and tube deposit
analyses to help evaluate the future benefits of the program. A history of forced outages
and unit derates due to cycle chemistry events was also developed to help track the
future progress of the CCIP.

Program/Progress Review

Progress at Plant F1

Plant F1 formed its CCIP team in February, 1994, and since that time they have
addressed most of the recommendations under EPRI's CCIP demonstration project.
The plant emphasized operations when selecting members for the CCIP team, with four team
members from the operations department.

The plant had approximately $20,000 in 1994 and $50,000 in 1995 allocated to its CCIP.
A formal cost/benefit analysis was not required to obtain these funds. The CCIP team
convinced the plant manager that the plant instrumentation was insufficient for
operators to monitor the critical “core” parameters, and the plant manager made the
funding available from discretionary accounts. The plant CCIP team has since,
upgraded and replaced much of the on-line chemical instrumentation. Tables F.1 and
F.2 show the current status of the on-line instrumentation for this plant.

The plant is also in the process of making improvements in their sample conditioning
panels. It has purchased a multiline Sentry sample conditioning and instrument panel.

The plant has a Yokogawa, minicomputer based, Data Acquisition System (DAS) which
receives operational data from the two large steam units. The 4 - 20 mA signals from the
on-line chemistry analyzers are fed into the DAS. The operators have real time
chemistry data available in the control room for all of the core parameters and are able to
observe data trends. The operators receive alarms on chemistry data which fall outside
of the Control Limits.

The plant CCIP team, as discussed earlier, has also established cycle chemistry control
limits and action levels for all core parameters of the boiler cycles and demineralizers.
The team then created the operator response procedures for each of the action levels.
The input from the operators on the plant CCIP team was most valuable in creating the response
procedure.

A-60
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

The operator cycle chemistry training program was developed as a team effort by the
corporate chemistry, plant chemistry and plant operations personnel.

The objective of the plant operator cycle chemistry training program was to prepare the
operator to use the on-line chemical instrumentation to determine the following:

• when a cycle chemistry upset condition exists,

• how severe is the chemistry upset situation,and

• what immediate action must be taken to prevent equipment damage and to


minimize the loss of electric production or availability of the unit.

The goal of the training program was not to make chemists of the operators, but to
provide them with enough information so that they are comfortable with evaluating the
situation and taking the initial corrective action. Input from the operations personnel
was critical in creating a training program that was easy for all of the operators to
understand and yet accomplished all of the CCIP objectives.

All of the plant operators completed the cycle chemistry training program by April,
1995. Refresher training, which will include program and system updates, is planned
for the future.

Plant F1 has been operating under the CCIP cycle chemistry control limits and action
levels for over four months and the operators have responded well to their new
responsibilities. The operators fill out a Cycle Chemistry Event Report when a
parameter enters an action level. The operators have detected and corrected several
small systems upsets; however, no major system contamination events have occurred
during this period.

Progress at Plant F2

Plant F2 formed its CCIP team in February, 1994 and since that time they also have
addressed most of the recommendations under EPRI's CCIP demonstration project.
This plant emphasized maintenance when selecting members for the CCIP team with three
team members from each of the maintenance areas.

Plant F2 had approximately $20,000 in 1994 and $50,000 in 1995 allocated to their CCIP.
The justification process was the same as discussed for the team at Plant F1. The plant
CCIP team has also upgraded and replaced much of the on-line chemical
instrumentation. Tables F.3 and F.4 show the current status of the on-line
instrumentation for the plant.

A-61
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

The plant is also in the process of making improvements in their sample conditioning
panels. It is constructing new sample conditioning panels using Sentry SL200H (or
SL200L) single sample line panels.

This plant also plans to install a new DAS computer during the 1995 fall outage season,
which will receive data from the on-line chemistry analyzers, similar to Plant F1’s plans.
Until the new DAS computer is installed, the plant has installed alarm trees
(RiS AN-3196B) on the sample panels for units F2-1 and F2-2. Each of the on-line
analyzers, if out of the set control limits, sends an alarm signal to the local alarm tree
where each instrument has an indicator light. The alarm tree sends a signal to the
control room which alarms unit F1 or F2 cycle chemistry alarm.

The plant CCIP team also established cycle chemistry control limits and action levels for
all of the core parameters for the boiler cycles and the demineralizers based on
historical operating data. The team then created the operator response procedures for
each of the action levels using the Plant F1’s response procedures as examples.

The operator cycle chemistry training program was developed as a team effort by the
corporate chemistry, plant chemistry and plant operations personnel. The objectives
and goals of this plant’s operator cycle chemistry training program were the same as
Plant F1’s program.

All of Plant F2 operators completed the cycle chemistry training program by March,
1995. Refresher training, which will include program and system updates, is planned
for the future.

The Plant F2 CCIP team created the Cycle Chemistry Event Report form (Figure F.1).
This form was slightly modified and used by Plant F1. The operators fill out the Cycle
Chemistry Event Report form whenever a parameter enters an action level.

Plant F2 has been operating under the CCIP cycle chemistry control limits and action
levels for over five months and the operators have responded well to their new
responsibilities. The operators have detected and corrected several small systems
upsets; However, no major system contamination events have occurred during this
period.

Performance Indices Development

The most important performance index of the CCIP for Utility F is boiler cleanliness. Utility F
uses the methodology (deposit density determinations) described in the EPRI chemical
cleaning guidelines for fossil-fired boilers2. It also considers the boiler tube failure
history of the unit, in terms of tolerance for deposits due to prior boiler tubing damage,
before making a final decision.

A-62
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Plant F1 - Cycle Chemistry Event Report No.

Unit - Date - Initiator - ESR#


Event Description

Date & Time Event Began


Date & Time Event Ended

Parameter(s) Outside of Control Limits:

Values and Action Levels:

Action(s) Taken:

Shift Supervisor Comments:

Related Repairs or Inspections Required:

Date Repairs or Inspections Completed:

Laboratory Comments:

See Reverse Side For Cycle Chemistry Control Limits & Action Levels
All Cycle Chemistry Event Reports Shall Be Forwarded to The Lab

Figure F.1 - Cycle Chemistry Event Report Form

A-63
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table F.1 - Plant F1, Unit F1-1


New On-line Chemical Instrumentation

SAMPLE POINT ON LINE INSTRUMENT

Condensate Cation Conductivity Analyzer


Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer Orbisphere Model 26060

Sodium Monitor - Orion Model 1811 EL

Boiler Feed pH Analyzer - Yokogawa Model PH400

Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer Orbisphere Model 2606

Economizer To be added in the fall, 1995 Cation Conductivity Analyzer


Inlet Yokogawa Model SC 400

To be added in the fall, 1995 - Sodium Monitor


Orion Model 1811 EL

To be added in the fall, 1995, Oxygen Scavenger Monitor


Orion Model 1818

Boiler pH Analyzer Yokogawa Model PH400

Main Steam To be added in the fall, 1995, Cation Conductivity Analyzer


Yokogawa Model SC 400

To be added in the fall, 1995, Sodium Monitor


Orion Model 1811 EL

Circulating Water pH Analyzer - Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Specific Conductivity Analyzer, Yokogawa Model SC 400

Circ. Water Chemical Feed Controller, Nalco Shadow Scan


Sensor

A-64
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table F.2 - Plant F1, Unit F1-2


On-line Chemical Instrumentation

SAMPLE POINT ON-LINE INSTRUMENT

Condensate Cation Conductivity Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup


Model 7082

Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer, Orbisphere Model 2713

Sodium Monitor, Orion Model 1811 EL

Boiler Feed pH Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082


Pump Suction

Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer, Orbisphere Model 3600

Economizer Cation Conductivity Analyzer, Yokogawa Model SC 400


Inlet

Not available at this time, but soon, Sodium Monitor


- Orion Model 1811 EL

Not available at this time, but soon


Oxygen Scavenger Monitor
Orion Model 1818

Boiler pH Analyzer, Yokogawa Model PH400

Main Steam Cation Conductivity Analyzer, Yokogawa Model SC 400

Not available at this time, but soon


Sodium Monitor - Orion Model 1811 EL

Circulating Water pH Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Specific Conductivity Analyzer, Yokogawa Model SC 400

Circ. Water Chemical Feed Controller


Nalco Shadow Scan Sensor

A-65
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table F.3 - Plant F2, Unit F2-1


New On-line Chemical Instrumentation
(to be installed in the 1995 fall outage)

SAMPLE POINT ON-LINE INSTRUMENT

Condensate pH Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Cation Conductivity Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer, Waltron Model AI-9060


To be added with the new sample panel

Portable Sodium Monitor - Mounted on a Dolly


Waltron Model AI-9030 (Shared with unit F2-2)

Boiler pH Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Specific Conductivity Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup


Model 7082

Saturated Steam Cation Conductivity Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Glycol Heater Drain Specific Conductivity Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup


Model 7082

Sample Panel Local Individual Instrument Alarms, Single Alarm Signal to


Control Room, Alarming Unit F2-1 Cycle Chemistry
Alarm Tree RiS AN-3196B Alarm Tree

A-66
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table F.4 - Plant F2, Unit F2-2


New On-line Chemical Instruments
(to be installed in the spring 1996 outage)

SAMPLE POINT ON-LINE INSTRUMENT

Condensate Cation Conductivity Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer, Waltron Model AI-9060


To be added with the new sample panel

Portable Sodium Monitor, Mounted on a Dolly


Waltron Model AI-9030 (Shared with unit F2-1)

Boiler pH Analyzer, Leeds & Northrup Model 7082

Specific Conductivity Analyzer, Existing Analyzer is an old


L&N, plan to replace with a new Leeds & Northrup Model
7082 or Yokogawa Model SC 400

Saturated Steam Cation Conductivity Analyzer, Existing Analyzer is an old


L&N, plan to replace with a new Leeds & Northrup
Model 7082 or Yokogawa Model SC 400

Air Pre-Heater Specific Conductivity Analyzer, Existing Analyzer is an old


L&N plan to replace with a new Leeds & Northrup
Model 7082 or Yokogawa Model SC 400

Sample Panel Local Individual Instrument Alarms


Alarm Tree Single Alarm Signal to Control Room
Alarming Unit F2-2 Cycle Chemistry
RiS AN-3196B Alarm Tree

Another performance index, selected by the CCIP team, was that of unit availability
outage and derate events due to cycle chemistry. Information is taken from Utility F’s
Federal Energy Reliability Commission (FERC) report. A dollar amount is assigned to
each by using a seasonal estimate of average forced outage costs. An example
illustration of the Boiler Forced Outages & Derates Form with the individual event
listings for one of the units at Plant F2 during the 1994-1995 period, is shown in
Figure F.2. The six year history for the same unit is shown in Figure F.3. Observations of
this figure show improvements due to retubing an Admiralty condenser with 304
stainless steel, gradual replacement of damaged waterwall panels, and reduced MWhr
losses due to silica because of fewer startups as a result of changing to a cheaper coal.
The estimated outage cost is based on the fuel cost of replacing lost generation and the
cost of lost sales and profits.

A-67
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Examples of CCIP Benefits, Costs, Programmatic and Technical Developments

All of the technical developments and improvements which can be directly attributed to
Utility F’s participation in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project have already been
previously discussed, i.e. upgrades in on-line chemical instrumentation, new sample
conditioning panels, and inclusion of data from chemical analyzers into the plant data
management systems. There have been no major equipment replacements in the year
and a half that the CCIP's have been in effect at Plants F1 and F2; however, there have
been major expenses at both plants in recent years for replacement of equipment, the
useful life of which was impacted by cycle chemistry. Tables F.5, F.6 and F.7 contain
historical data on major chemistry-related expenses at each plant.

Utility F CCIP teams have made some definite progress in the first year and a half of the
program, but there is still some work to do to achieve all of the goals of the CCIP. The
CCIP teams have received excellent support from plant and corporate management. The first
big achievement of the CCIP has been the operator training program. The benefit of the
training program is having the operators use the on-line chemistry instrumentation to
determine when a chemistry upset condition exists, and taking initial corrective action
to minimize the problem. The operators at the participating plants have had several
opportunities to respond to chemistry upsets in the last several months, and they have
responded promptly to the situation before it became a problem.

The improvements in the on-line chemical instrumentation and the sample conditioning
systems have been very beneficial, confidence in the data from the on-line analyzers has
been greatly increased.

A-68
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure F.2 Forced Outages and Derates, Plant F1, Unit F1-2 -1994 to 1995

A-69
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure F.3 Boiler Forced Outages & Derates, Plant F1, Unit F1-2, 1990-95

A-70
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table F.5 - Plant F1


Cycle Chemistry Problems Related Maintenance Work

Description Est. Cost


Annual Condenser Tube Cleaning Unit F1-1 $5,500
Annual Condenser Tube Cleaning Unit F1-2 $5,500
Chemical Cleaning Boilers $40,000
Boiler Tube Leak Repairs (After Chem. Cleaning) $15,000
Annual Unplanned Boiler Tube Repairs $15,000

Table F.6 -Plant F1


Major Chemistry Related Expenses Construction Projects - 1985 to Present

Year Description Cost


1985 Repair Unit F1-2 Roof Tubes $498,000
1987 Unit F1-2 Deaerator, Equipment Purchase $480,000
1987 Replace Left Wall Unit F1-2 $525,000
1987 Replace Unit F1-2 Economizer $500,000
1988 Unit F1-2 Deaerator, Installation $250,000
1988 Unit F1-2 Condenser Retube, 304SS $500,000
1989 Replace Unit F1-1 Lower Sidewalls $500,000
1989 Replace Unit F1-1 Economizer $550,000
1989 Replace Unit F1-2 Burner Corner Tubes $488,000
1989 Replace Unit F1-2 Lower Sidewalls $500,000
1990 Unit F1-1 Deaerator, Purchase and Installation $300,000
1992 Retube Unit F1-1 Condenser, 304SS $300,000
1992 Install New Circulating Water Acid Feed System $80,000
1993 Unit F1-2 Condenser Cleaning System, Taprogge $400,000
1994 Replace Unit F1-2 Lower Front Wall $500,000
1994 Replace Unit F1-2 Lower Burner Corner Bent Tubes $20,000
1994 Replace Unit F1-2 Upper South Wall $137,000
1995 Replace Unit F1-2 Coutant Bottom $650,000
1995 Replace Unit F1-1 Bifurcated Tubes $350,000
1995 Replace Unit F1-2 BCP’s and Valves $600,000
Total $8,128,000

A-71
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table F.7 - Plant F2


Historical Investments Related to Cycle Chemistry

Year Description
1977 Unit F2-2 Condenser Partial Retubing ( Admiralty)
1982 Unit F2-1 Replaced No. 5 Feedwater Heater (304 SS)
1990 Unit F2-1 Replaced No. 6 Feedwater Heater (304 SS)
1994 Unit F2-1 Replaced No. 4 Feedwater Heater (Admiralty)
1994 Unit F2-2 Replaced No. 2 Feedwater Heater (A106C)

Concerns, Problems and Recommendations

The cycle chemistry event report form is filled out any time the operator observes a
problem, the form tells what the problem was and what corrective action was taken.
The completed cycle chemistry event report form is then posted in the control room so that
the operator knows that his action was taken seriously and responded to by the lab, maintenance
or plant management. Both plant CCIP teams recommend that the cycle chemistry event
report forms only be filled out for Action Level 3 or higher events.

The multidiscipline plant CCIP teams have worked well together. With the operations,
maintenance, chemistry and management personnel all contributing and working
towards the same goals under the CCIP, the essential aspects of the program have been
workable and effective. Under the plant CCIP's, costs associated with cycle chemistry-
related unit outages and derates were tracked back to 1990. With only having been in
the program for less than two years, it is difficult to accurately state the savings which
can be directly attributed to the CCIP.

The performance indices can be used as a tool to track long term trends, but can be
misleading when used to forecast expenses and calculate savings. The cost of a forced
outage can be calculated, however, because a unit did not have a chemistry related
forced outage this month or this year does not necessarily mean that the CCIP saved
that amount. The expense may be delayed to some time in the future, and the CCIP may
be just one of several factors causing the expense to be delayed. This does not mean
that the CCIP is not beneficial, but rather that the savings attributable to the CCIP are
difficult to quantify.

Utility F’s CCIP was first established at Plants F1 and F2 under the EPRI demonstration
CCIP project. Plans are underway to expand the CCIP to the other Energy Centers in
the system. It is doubtful that the other plants will try to track the costs associated with
cycle chemistry as close as Plants F1 and F2 under the EPRI project, but they will have

A-72
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

the operator training program, the cycle chemistry control limits, action levels, and
operator response procedures developed as at Plants F1 and F2.

Utility G

Scope of Participation

Utility G became a participating utility in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project in


December of 1993. The objective for participating was to evaluate and further define it’s
chemistry practices and guidelines at Plant G, it’s four-unit fossil station totaling
2222 MW. All units have drum boilers with a maximum drum pressure of 2850 psig.
Plant chemistry is equilibrium phosphate (EPT). Units G-1 and G-2 share a Powdex
full-flow condensate polisher, and Units G-3 and G-4 share a TransAmerica Delaval
polishing unit.

Shortly after making a commitment to participate in the demonstration project, a multi-


disciplinary group of staff was selected as the plant’s CCIP team. Reorganization of staff
at the site has resulted in recent reassignments to this committee. A new operator
Chemistry Manual, with limits and required actions, was completed in February of
1995. Also a Chemistry Training Manual was written in association with this document
to supplement the Normal and Unit Operating Procedures and Training System
Manuals.

A Copper Corrosion Evaluation Study was also conducted to outline an action plan to
minimize transport and deposition in the water and steam loops. The group also
continues to be active in revising the Chemistry Manual and reviewing problems that
are chemistry related.

Program/Progress Review

Operations

The Chemistry Manual was written with the understanding that it should be brief but
concise. The Chemistry manual outlines the sample points and lists limits, action levels
and required out-of-range responses for all CCIP “core” parameters (listed in Table 1.1
in Section 1), and establishes the following 3 control ranges for each system sample
point:

• Early Unit Startup - Zero to 1800 PSI Steam Drum Pressure

• Later Stage of Startup - 1800 to 2850 PSI Steam Drum Pressure

A-73
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

• Normal Operation - 2650 or 2850 PSI (depends on the generating unit)

Two Tables provide the bulk of the information. They are titled “Cycle Chemistry
Limits” and “Troubleshooting Startup and Normal Operations”. A portion of the Out-
of Range Response Tables” is shown in Table G.1.

The Chemistry Manuals have been well received by the operations staff. These manuals
provide them with the necessary information to know when a problem occurs and
when it has been corrected. It also has proven to be a useful tool and resource for the
chemists in justifying their actions and requests. Utility G has a degreed chemist on
every operating shift. The established limits provide guidance for the shift supervision
on what actions to take. It is anticipated that required actions for out of range
conditions will reduce the loss of efficiency on some components; i.e. boilers and high
pressure turbines.

The chromatograph has provided chemists with the ability to detect low concentrations
of sulfates and chlorides. This has been a useful tool, especially in the event of a
condenser tube leak. Contamination can be detected much sooner. Data is being
accumulated at this time. It is planned to include a control chart, limits, and out-of-
range responses for sulfate and chloride levels in the future.

A-74
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table G.1 Out-Of-Range (OOR) Response Table

Monit. Rec. Start-Up On-Load Cause of OOR Required Action toReturn to Normal
Point Pt Values Values Condition

BBD* pH 8.00-9.30 9.30-9.85 Normal Range No Action Required


8.0-9.30 Faulty analyzer Check analyzer flow and temp. Adjust if
reading necessary. Check pH on a grab sample. If
these differ by +/-0.3 recalibrate
instrument
Low PO4 feed rate Check PO4 concentration. If low, check the
operation of the PO4 pump. If not
pumping, valve in the other pump. Check
PO4 level in the tank.

Condenser leak or Make up and inject caustic solution. Check


contaminated CPD for contaminants. Place cond.
make-up water polisher in service. Notify Shift Sup. that a
controlled shutdown may be necessary.
Check the pH and PO4 every 30 min. while
injecting caustic. If pH and PO4 continue
to decrease, a condenser leak exists.
Increase PO4 to max of 2.0 ppm to allow
for increased buffering. Increase BBD to
remove contaminants. If PO4 doesn’t
decrease, make-up may be contamin.
Check pH on grab sample.

7.00-8.00 7.00-8.00 Condenser leak or Reduce load to minimum. Continue to


contam. make-up inject caustic and monitor pH for a
water maximum of 6 hours.
<7.00 <7.00 Condenser leak Rapid controlled shutdown(10 min.).
>9.85 >9.85 Faulty analyzer Check flow and temp. Adjust if necessary.
Check pH on grab sample.
>9.85 >9.85 Overfeeding PO4 Check PO4 conc. If high, reduce pump
or caustic stroke. If feed tank contains caustic, drain
and refill with Na3PO4. Increase BBD and
monitor pH

*BBD - Boiler Blow Down

A-75
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Justification:

Justification for this instrument was based on the inability of the plant to detect low
levels of sulphates and chlorides from condenser leaks such that future turbine blade
problems resulting from same could be avoided.

Maintenance

Plant instrumentation was reviewed to ensure that critical “core” parameters were
being monitored. Although all points were being measured with plant instrumentation,
it served as a good review and emphasized the need to maintain the critical “core”
instruments. One I&C Technician has been assigned to cycle chemistry instrumentation
for each set of units for a number of years. This review also emphasized the need to
continue this practice. CCIP training for these I&C Technicians greatly enhanced their
understanding of cycle chemistry and reinforced the need for a sound instrument
maintenance program.

Technical

Several modifications that have arisen during the time that we have participated in the
Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program are:

• Placing all four units on equilibrium phosphate treatment (EPT). This has included a
revision to the phosphate curve to allow for a pH correction due to the ammonia
concentration. This conversion was done using EPRI phosphate guidelines 3.

• Copper concentrations are monitored and a control chart is used during startups for
two of the units. This change was implemented in an attempt to reduce copper
deposition on high pressure turbine components.

• With the recent purchase of an ion chromatograph data is being collected to


determine the normal concentration levels of sulfates and chlorides in the
water/steam loops. It is planned to define established limits and out-of-range
responses for these two ions in the future.

• Out-of-range required actions now define minimum boiler pH conditions. Having


established the required actions for pH excursions eliminates the need for debate
when problems occur. Operations knows what has been agreed upon and follows
the established guidelines.

• Review of the feedwater/boiler blowdown metals concentrations and four turbine


steam path audits during the past 5 years resulted in a decision to convert all units
from hydroquinone back to a more conventional type of oxygen scavenger
treatment (hydrazine). This decision was based on finding heavier copper deposits
A-76
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

on the high pressure turbine stages during the audits since making the change to
hydroquinone. The deposits were also found to be of metallic rather than of the
copper oxide form.

Data Management

For several years Utility G has been in the process of developing a data base system.
The main groups requiring its use are the Performance Engineering and Operations
Departments. This data management system included cycle chemistry prior to
participation in EPRI’s CCIP. Having the ability to review trends on any chemistry
parameter assists in graphically identifying problem areas.

Performance Indices Development

Technical

Chemists are responsible for trending data to determine the percentage that each system
parameter is within limits. This information is reviewed daily and compiled on a
quarterly basis for each unit. It is reviewed by the Chemistry Supervisor to determine
any current chemistry problems, longer term trends of the critical “core” parameters,
and for improvements due to the CCIP. Examples of typical plots for the four “core”
cycle chemistry process parameters, i.e. cation conductivity, sodium, dissolved oxygen
and pH, for the four units at Plant G are shown in Figures G.1 through G.8. This
information is presented to the team on an as-needed and a semi-annual basis.

Cost

Utility G has not developed effective ways to track cost savings or cost increases due to
cycle chemistry. For the past 5 years the Performance Engineering Department has
conducted turbine steam path audits (see Appendix B) on two 333 MW Units. This
information was the most useful tool in helping to determine that copper deposition was getting
worse on high pressure components. For the minimal cost of the audit it proves to be
extremely useful in determining efficiency losses. A 50% reduction in high pressure
turbine deposits can easily translate to $250,000/yr for a 333 MW Unit.

A-77
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure G.1 Boiler Blowdown & Main Steam Data, Plant G, Unit G-1

Figure G.2 CPD & Economizer Inlet Data, Plant G, Unit G-1

A-78
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure G.3 Boiler Blowdown & Main Steam Data, Plant G, Unit G-2

Figure G.4 CPD & Economizer Inlet Data, Plant G, Unit G-2

A-79
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure G.5 Boiler Blowdown & Main Steam Data, Plant G, Unit G-3

Figure G.6 CPD & Economizer Inlet Data, Plant G, Unit G-3

A-80
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure G.7 Boiler Blowdown & Main Steam Data, Plant G, Unit G-4

Figure G.8 CPD & Economizer Inlet Data, Plant G, Unit G-4

A-81
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Examples of CCIP Benefits, Costs, Programmatic and Technical Developments

• Developed Division Cycle Chemistry Statement

• Conducted the Initial Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program Training to Assist in


Project Development.

Initial training was held in December of 1993. The following 5 modules were presented
to the staff members of applicable departments: (1) Principals of Cycle Chemistry
Control in Fossil Plants, (2) Maintenance Controllable Activities Influencing Cycle
Chemistry, (3) Operator Controllable Activities Influencing Cycle Chemistry, (4)
Chemist/Technician Controllable Activities Influencing Cycle Chemistry, and (5)
Management Decisions Influencing Cycle Chemistry.

• Selected a Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program Team

Selection of a Site Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program Team took place during
the spring of 1993. Members included: an Operations Supervisor, a Chemistry
Supervisor, a Results Engineer, an Operations and Maintenance Specialists and a
Performance Engineer. The current team includes reassigned members from Water
Treatment and Engineering.

• Developed a Chemistry Manual with critical “core” parameter limits, action levels
and required out-of-range response actions for a System Technical Performance
Indices, and developed operator Chemistry Training Manuals with future plans to
incorporate chemistry into unit Operating Procedures. Limits for the “core”
parameters were determined by review of historical operating data, EPRI generic
limits5, and historical unit cycle chemistry problems.

A consulting firm was utilized to write and assemble the Chemistry Manual and
operator Chemistry Training Manual for the four units. Information was gathered
from CCIP Team Members. The CCIP Team reviewed the assembled drafts.
Requests for revisions were made by this group. The Chemistry Manuals include
established control parameters for initial startup (zero-1800 psi - drum pressure),
and normal operation (either 2650 psi or 2850 psi). They also outline the required
actions that are to occur in a particular system in the event that a particular
parameter is outside of its established operating limits.

• Reviewed Plant Instrumentation and Chemistry Laboratory Instrumentation to


Verify or Allow for Monitoring of Critical Chemical Process Parameters.

Review of existing instrumentation indicated that all parameters were being


monitored with the exception of sulphates and chlorides. The inability to detect low
level sulphates and chlorides that result from a condenser leak could result in future

A-82
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

turbine availability problems. Avoidance of these possible future problems provided


justification for the purchase of an ion chromatograph to allow for low level
detection of these ions. The instrument was purchased in December of 1994 and has
proved to be a useful tool.

• Conducting CCIP Team Investigations into Plant Chemistry Problems - Metals

Transport, Condensate/Feedwater Chemistry, Boiler Tube Sampling, and Boiler


Chemical Cleaning Schedule.

A second consulting firm was hired to conduct a study to evaluate copper corrosion
and deposition in the condensate/feedwater, boiler, and steam cycles. The local
CCIP Team identified the required scope of work and were utilized to obtain the
bulk of the required information for this study. A follow-up action plan was
developed in an attempt to minimize metal transport and deposition.

• Provided Additional Training Following the Completion of the Chemistry Manuals


and Chemistry Training Manuals.

A second session of training was held in December of 1994. The consultant that
assembled the Chemistry Manual and the Chemistry Training Manual presented
and overview of this material. Several different modules were presented including:

— Condensate/Feedwater - Boiler - Steam Chemistry,

— Condensate Polishing,

— Make-up Water Treatment (Pretreatment and Demineralization),

— Flue Gas Desulfurization (Scrubbers), and

— Cooling Water.

Concerns, Problems and Recomendations

The most significant challenge in participating in this program was to identify actual
cost savings attributed to improved cycle chemistry. Improvements or detrimental
changes are often difficult to attribute to just one area. Chemistry plays a role in this
process as do day-to-day operational and maintenance practices. Developing a team
approach to address cycle chemistry problems is seen as an efficient way to solve cycle
chemistry problems and reduce costs. It is realized that EPRI could utilize actual utility-
specific cost savings resulting from participation in the CCIP demonstration project to
assist others in justifying improvements within their cycle chemistry programs. Using

A-83
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Utility G resources, to specifically identify these costs, have been limited during the
short duration of their participation in this demonstration project.

Utility H

Scope of Participation

Project participation began with programmatic training in March, 1992. System


involvement included five plants, approximately 3095 MW’s, encompassing ten
operating units: eight drum boilers with operating pressures of 1500 to 3000 psig, and
two subcritical once-through boilers with operating pressures of 3025 psig. Chemistries
used in the plants are congruent phosphate (CPT) for the drum units and all-volatile
treatment (AVT) for the once-through units. Only one drum unit has a condensate
polisher while each of the once-through units has one. The diversity of units made it
necessary to tailor the application of EPRI’s CCIP program to each unit and location.
The staff organization at each plant also varied, which contributed to the necessity of
tailoring the program to fit not only unit type but also the personnel at each plant.

Prior to participating in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project, Utility H was also an active
participant in EPRI’s Boiler Tube Failure (BTF) Reduction demonstration project4. Like
the implementation of it’s formalized BTF Reduction Program, support for its CCIP
program started at the vice president and plant manager level. Commitment from that level
ensured that the CCIP would be supported as well as the BTF program has been.

Program/Progress Review

The startup of the CCIP Program occurred with the signing, by the Vice President of
Fossil Generation, of a corporate mandate (directive) relating to the CCIP program. The
first two steps in implementation of the program were the training provided by EPRI’s
project contractor, on the important programmatic features of a formalized CCIP, and
the establishment of chemistry teams at each of the participating plants.

Table H.1 lists the composition of teams established at four of the respective plants and
Central Lab. The plant chemist was designated as the team leader at each plant. The idea
of the team concept was to bring together key personnel that would be involved in
troubleshooting and correction of chemistry concerns. The most effective team would likely
include representation from chemistry, operations, equipment and instrumentation
maintenance.

The team leader was responsible for taking the initiative for chemistry improvement. If
a chemistry problem occurred, the team leader would determine which team members

A-84
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

should be involved to correct it and find a permanent solution to prevent it from


occurring again.

Operations

Chemical control limits for the “core” parameters ( listed in Table 1.1 in Section 1) were
established for each unit. Historical and operating data were used for setting targets for
improvement. EPRI consensus guidelines5 were used as the reference limits for the
“core” parameters. Where historical and operational data indicated EPRI “core” limits
were not achievable, root cause analysis was performed to determine what could be
done to improve performance. In some instances, reducing a value to the reference limit
was not possible because of an operational and equipment problem but a substantial
reduction was still achieved. One example being the reduction of condenser air in-
leakage from over 32 cfm to 11 cfm on a 600 MW unit. Where values were found to be
better than the reference limits, no tightening of limits were made.

Complete chemistry operating procedures were written at some plants as part of a


program to improve the entire plant operation procedure documentation. These
procedures included detailed descriptions of the function and operation of all
equipment that affects chemistry. This included demineralizers, polishers, on-line
instrumentation, and laboratory analytical procedures. A goal to complete this at all
plants is currently under consideration. Part of the operational authority involving
chemistry includes the ability of unit operators to remove a boiler from service if the
drum pH falls below 8. Because of CCIP training and support of management at the highest
level, Utility H operating personnel can now protect the units from a potential low pH
hydrogen damage situation by removing them from service in a timely manner.

A-85
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table H.1 Chemistry Improvement Teams

Corporate

1. Supervisor of Fossil Plant Chemistry


2. Power Plant Chemistry Specialist (EPRI CCIP Coordinator)
3. Central Lab Facilities
Plant H1

1. Plant Chemist—Team Leader


2. Operations Representative—Assistant Shift Supervisor
3. Mechanical Maintenance—Assistant Supervisor
4. Technical Service Director
5. Results Engineers (4)
6. Calibration and Instrumentation(C&I) Supervisor
Plant H2

1. Plant Chemist—Team Leader


2. Results Supervisor
3. Maintenance Supervisor
4. C&I Supervisor
Plant H3

1. Plant Chemist—Team Leader


2. Laboratory Technician
3. Plant Manager
4. Results Supervisor and Engineer
5. Operations Director
6. Maintenance Supervisor
Plant H4

1. Plant Chemist—Team Leader


2. Operations Director
3. Results Supervisor

A-86
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Operation of some equipment was changed to improve chemistry control especially on


startup. The steam seal pressure and gland loop steam seal condenser water levels were
optimized by operations to reduce air inleakage on some units. Copper alloy low- and
high-pressure feedwater heaters were being replaced with all ferrous systems to get rid
of copper corrosion transport and deposition problems.

Justification for changing to ferrous feedwater heaters was due to a history of no


waterside deposit-related boiler tube failures on non-copper units, and projected
reductions in chemical cleaning costs (shorter cleaning outage time required) by not
having to perform a copper removal stage. Nitrogen blanketing was installed on boiler
drums, feedwater and deaerating heaters to enhance operations ability to protect the
units during cyclical operation.

Maintenance

The support of maintenance varied at each plant. One technique used at a station was to
stamp any maintenance work request that would improve chemistry with a red "C". This
would immediately call attention to the request so that it would be given a high
priority. The repair of on-line analyzers was improved at all plants. Education of C&I
personnel and support from their supervisor reduced the downtime for on-line
instrumentation at all plants. Station H1 had a full time instrument technician assigned
to the plant chemist.

All units are evaluated for sources of air inleakage using helium mass spectroscopy.
Leaks are identified, labeled, and photographed. Maintenance work requests were
always written up to ensure the repair process could be expedited. The photographs were
used to assist maintenance personnel in locating exactly what part needed repair. Through
meetings of the CCIP team, maintenance personnel indicated they could not always tell
by a written description what part needed repair. Therefore, in some cases in the past,
repairs could not always be made. Photographing and labeling the leaks resolved this
problem.

Technical

The main effect the CCIP had on this area was to improve the level of knowledge of
current technical performance, and better understanding and response to chemistry
control problems. Investigations into the technical cycle-chemistry performance of the
participating units, i.e. the ability to equal or better the generic limits in the EPRI
guidelines5, did result in some improvement on a few of the units.

A-87
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Equipment Upgrades

The CCIP program allowed for the evaluation of all on-line chemistry analyzers.
Obsolete, maintenance intensive and inaccurate analyzers were replaced with
state-of-the-art units.

Justification

Justification was based on lack of spare parts, maintenance burden, poor accuracy and
no signal compatibility with the DAS system.

The new analyzers were field-proven prior to purchase. Coordination of the analyzer evaluations
through the CCIP allowed for some standardization of instrumentation throughout the fossil
plants. See Appendix C for how to develop state-of-the-art specifications on the “core”
instrumentation.

Data Management

Two types of data management were developed to improve chemistry control. The first
is on-line data acquisition systems (DAS), which were installed on several of the units.
These systems provided plant personnel with real-time information about unit
chemistry. These systems could be monitored in the control room, laboratory, and other
designated areas of the plant. The systems also have alarm capability for notification of
chemistry out-of-control conditions. The alarm function allowed for quick response to
chemistry upsets. The data acquisition systems also allow for trending of data to assist
in diagnosing the cause of chemistry excursions.

The second type of chemistry data management is a monthly report that displays the
percent of time a given unit is in compliance with chemistry guidelines. Figure H.1 is an
example of how the data was first reported. This graph lists each sample point and the
percent of time in control and in each action level. The graph also has a line that
displays the percent in control for the past 12 months for each sample point. If the bar
for a given sample point percent in control was above the line, then chemistry for that
point was improving. If the percent in control for a given sample point was below the
line, then chemistry was getting worse.

The graphic presentation of chemistry data was recently changed to the format shown
on Figure H.2. This presentation of the data averages all sample points for a given unit
rather than displaying them separately. The line on the top graph represents the
average compliance of the units for the month reported. If a bar is above the line, then
that unit is out performing the 10 unit average for the month. The bottom graph
represents a unit's 12 month average compliance. If the value of the bottom bar is higher
than the unit's monthly bar above, then the chemistry for the month is worse than

A-88
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

average. If the value of the bottom bar is less than the top bar for a given unit, then
chemistry for the unit was better that month and indicated improvement.

The third type of chemistry data collected was in the form of a supplemental grab
sampling system. Originally grab samples from various points in the cycle were
collected monthly. The analysis performed on the various sample points is illustrated in
Tables H.2 through H.4. The sampling was used to establish base line data and to help
check calibration of on-line analyzers. The program has been changed to quarterly
sampling or more frequently if cycle chemistry problems are being investigated.

A-89
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure H.1- Chemistry Control Guidelines, Units H1-1 and H1-2


% of Time Parameter Is Within Utility H’s Guidelines

A-90
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure H.2 - EPRI Chemistry Monthly Summary


% of Time Within Utility H’s Chemistry Guidelines

A-91
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table H.2
Cycle Chemistry Grab Sample Monitoring
Once-Through Subcritical Units H1-1 and H1-2

PARAMETERS
Location Zn Fe Cu Na Cl SO4 Formate/ TOC NH3 Frequency
Acetate
CPD X X X X X X X X X
Quarterly or as
Econ Inlet X X X X X X X X needed for
troubleshooting
Polisher Outlet X X X X X X X X chemistry
problems
Main Steam X X X X X X X
Reheat Steam X X X X X X X X
D/A Inlet X X X X X
D/A Outlet X X X X X

Table H.3
Cycle Chemistry Grab Sample Monitoring
Large Drum Unit H1-3

Parameter
Location Ni Zn Fe Cu Na Cl SO4 Formate/ TOC PO4 NH3 Frequency
Acetate
CPD X X X X X X X X
Quarterly or
Econ Inlet X X X X X X X X X as needed for
troubleshooting
D/A Inlet X X X X X X X X X chemistry
problems
D/A Outlet X X X X X X X X
Polisher Outlet X X X X X X X X
Main Steam X X X X X X X X X
Drum X X X X
Reheat Steam X X X X X X X X X

A-92
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table H.4
Cycle Chemistry Grab Sample Monitoring
Large Drum Unit - No Copper

PARAMETERS

Location Fe Na Cl SO4 Formate/ TOC PO4 NH3 Frequency


Acetate
CPD X X X X X X X X
Quarterly or as
Econ Inlet X X X X X X X X needed for
troubleshooting
D/A Outlet X X X X X X X chemistry
problems
D/A Inlet X X X X X X X X

Polisher Outlet X X X X X X X X

Drum X X X

Main Steam X X X X X

Additional Training

Additional training for chemists was obtained at quarterly chemist meetings. Training
from a variety of sources on various topics were presented at the two-day meetings.
There was also time allowed for discussion or brain storming by all involved to help
solve a particular chemistry problem someone may have at their plant. Some personnel
attended training provided by outside vendors on cycle chemistry at their facility.
In-house training of non-chemistry personnel was provided at different levels at the
participating plants based on need and plant operating philosophy.

Performance Indices Development

Technical

The BTF program is one method used to track chemistry related failures. This program
was up and running prior to the CCIP and was integrated with the CCIP program very
well. Because it was a readily available source of tracking tube failures within the CCIP,
development of another method was not necessary. The monthly report, already
described, was used to track chemistry compliance and improvement. This report was
well received, and caused the initiation of investigations into methods to improve unit
chemistry control.

A-93
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Cost

Costs for chemistry-related expenses have been very difficult to quantify. A new
accounting system was put into place to more closely monitor all chemistry-related
expenses. The best numbers relate to chemical cleanings. The CCIP program, through
the use of EPRI chemical cleaning guidelines for fossil plants2, allowed for a more
scientific determination of when boilers should be chemically cleaned. Prior to having a
CCIP Utility H had a time-based chemical cleaning approach. This resulted in chemical
cleanings every two years regardless of actual boiler cleanliness. Since changing to a
boiler cleanliness based criteria, i.e. waterside deposit weights, the chemical-clean
frequency on two units was extended from two years to over four. It is presently not
known how long the time between cleaning will be because the latest tube section still
has low deposit weights. The cost for one cleaning is about $60,000. Therefore, if the
cleaning is extended from two years to six years, that equates to about $240,000. If the
additional availability of about three days for each is included, this is equal to l about
2% for a given one year equated availability. If the unit was needed, the extra time
gained by increasing the availability, and about $1,000,000/year/% is used for
availability costs, then total savings could approach $2,240,000.

Concerns, Problems, and Recommendations

The area of greatest concern in EPRI’s CCIP demonstration project is the difficulty in
quantifying chemistry-related costs. It is possible to document many material-related
chemical costs (acid, acoustic, resin, etc.), however, it is felt that larger chemistry costs
are hidden in other areas. Tube failures due to chemistry problems could be a source of
justification for equipment such as condensate polishers. However, a way to more
accurately quantify that cost is sorely needed. Also, corrosion-influenced failure
mechanisms for boiler tubes, such as corrosion fatigue and stress corrosion, make it
difficult to access how much of the cost for the availability loss is chemistry related.
Other than obtaining some component corrosion and deposition cycle chemistry costs,
implementing other essential aspects of Utility H’s CCIP went very well.

The greatest problem in the future of Utility H’s CCIP program is the reduction of
essential CCIP team personnel, as the plant chemist position no longer exists. The five
plant chemist positions were replaced by two regional chemists. Many of the other
original CCIP team members are also no longer with the company or are in different
position. The company is still in the early phases of reorganization so what the cycle
chemistry program will evolve into is not certain at this time. Due to this reduction in
on-site chemical support for the operating personnel, Utility H recommends that EPRI
accelerate its Efforts to develop a user-friendly expert system for operators to become
more self sufficient in handling most common cycle chemistry upsets.

A well organized and properly supported CCIP program can definitely lead to
improvement in a utility's bottom line profitability. In order for a CCIP program to be

A-94
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

successful in its implementation and day-to-day operation, it must be supported from the
executive level on down. Once a utility has committed to a CCIP program, the methods
used to implement it should be given very careful consideration. Without a well defined
implementation plan, the program may experience setbacks or delays. Data gathering
methods, establishing realistic technical and cost performance measurement indices,
team personnel requirements, and specific goals should be thoroughly developed prior
to the startup of the program. EPRI's involvement with the program should be
expanded to provide assistance to the utility coordinator on an as needed basis. The
concept of a continuing tailored collaboration CCIP project, with strong EPRI support in
terms of manpower and a technical assistance, would be beneficial to both EPRI and the
utilities.

With the increase in competition, utility companies are reducing staff to maintain profit
levels while lowering rate structures. Staff reductions at some utilities have reduced
chemistry personnel at a higher percentage than other areas. The future of plant
chemistry will depend on the education of key utility personnel, as well as maintaining
sufficient plant chemistry staff and some type of a CCIP.

Utility I

Scope of Participation

In May 1992, Utility I joined with other utilities participating in EPRI’s cycle chemistry
improvement demonstration project. Utility I has implemented EPRI’s CCIP (also
referred to as the “Steam Purity Monitoring Program”) systemwide including nine
generating stations with 26 operating fossil units totaling 12,005 MW’s. These
generating units include eighteen drum boilers with operating pressures ranging from
1,800 to 2,800 psig and eight once-through supercritical boilers. Plant chemistries for the
drum units include congruent phosphate (CPT) and all-volatile treatment (AVT).
Twelve drum units have condensate polishers; seven are full flow ion exchangers, and
five are primarily used for filtration during startups. The once-through supercritical
units utilize AVT and oxygenated treatment (OT), and all have condensate polishers.
Utility I’s CCIP has been implemented over the past three years at the cost of
approximately $4.6 million. These costs include the new cycle chemistry
instrumentation and data acquisition systems installed at all the operating stations, and
the in-house engineering overhead associated with the capital improvements. Utilizing
published EPRI guidelines as a technical reference, Utility I’s CCIP includes the
following at each plant:

• installed, where needed, new on-line instrumentation to analyze and record “core”
cycle chemistry parameter data on a continuous basis,

• established operating limits for all important cycle chemistry parameters,

A-95
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

• established reaction, control, and reporting procedures for each defined severity
level and every type of out-of-limit condition, and

• established a “Steam Purity Performance Index” to monitor success of the program.

In addition, the program involves a number of groups/divisions working together as a


team with the support of upper management. Teams were created at each plant which
typically consisted of a Results Engineer, Plant Chemist, Operations Supervisor, and a
Instrument and Controls Supervisor in an effort to attain the following goals:

• reduce the frequency and duration of forced outages due to water-chemistry-related


boiler tube failures,

• reduce maintenance costs,

• reduce the frequency of chemical cleaning, and to

• reduce water treatment costs.

Also, the CCIP has provided an important building block for each plant in their efforts
to achieving “Best of Class” goals.

Program/Progress Review

Installation of New Instrumentation

In August 1992, Utility I began implementing its Steam Purity Monitoring Program by
first creating a central team consisting of Chemical, Instrumentation & Controls, Boiler
Maintenance, Fossil Plant Engineering, and Plant Management personnel. The purpose
of this team was to determine which EPRI core” parameters would be monitored
continuously, and assess each plant’s instrumentation needs. A survey of each plant
was performed, a list was generated as to what instrumentation and associated
equipment would be required (see Table I.1- a partial listing for 6 out of 26 participating
units ), and an estimate of overall cost of the project was presented to management.

Justification:

In 1992, Utility I’s Steam Purity Monitoring Program corporate team justified the
installation of new instrumentation at each station to satisfy the “core” requirements of
the EPRI CCIP demonstration project, and data acquisition systems for each unit for
taking continuous on-line cycle chemistry parametric data for incorporation into unit
technical performance indices, primarily on the projected elimination of existing, and
the avoidance of future cycle chemistry-related boiler tube failures, reductions in cycle

A-96
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

chemistry-related turbine problems, and the reduced frequency and number of boiler
chemical cleanings.

Along with this survey, specific types and models of instrumentation were examined and
tested for reliability, accuracy, and ease of maintainability and use to determine what
instrumentation best filled its needs. Once this was determined, purchasing initiated a contract
with a specific supplier to furnish all instrumentation required for the project. Examples of
these specifications can be found in Appendix C.

Installation of a Data Acquisition System

The data acquisition process was divided into three (3) phases. The first phase was to
collect the data, the second phase involved the recording of data and creation of a
database, and the third phase required creating menu driven trending routines for
Table I.1.
Steam Purity Monitoring Program Instrumentation Required

Equipment Unit Number(s)


Description I1-1 I2-1 I3-1 I4-1 I5-1 I6-1
Cation Cond. Analyzer(s) 1 3 3 6 3 3
Sodium Analyzer(s) 1 3 3 3 3 3
Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer(s) 0 2 2 0 2 2
YEW Recorder(s) 1 1 1 0 1 1
pH Analyzer(s) 1 0 0 6 1 1
pH Probe for Existing 0 1 1 0 0 0
Analyzer(s)

the display and printing of collected data. Viewdac data acquisition programs were
written and installed at all but one plant. This plant decided to utilize a purchased
system that would allow them to collect, store and view data using the Honeywell
computer in the control room. The program at all other locations includes the following
functions:

• five (5) times per minute instrumentation data collection,

• display of data on computer monitor as data points are collected (for example, if the
condensate pump discharge (CPD) dissolved oxygen analyzer and Viewdac
sequence are set to read 0 to 200 ppb values, the ppb values will be Recorded),

• each hour’s maximums, minimums, and averages are automatically calculated and
written to a floppy drive,

A-97
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

• file names for each hour and each day are automatically changed to reflect time and
date,

• data files are written in ASCII and are easily imported into Lotus and many other
programs, and

• Autoexec, bat and Viewdac.ini files have been modified so that, if power is lost, the
system will re-start the data acquisition program, and will scan the system time and
resume data collection. Future plans call for the writing of data directly to a LAN
system and automating the generation of trends and reports.

Operating Limits/Reporting Procedure

The next step was the establishment of operating limits and action levels for the “core”
parameters ( listed in Table 1.1 in Section 1), utilizing EPRI’s Interim Consensus
Guidelines as a reference, and Utility I’s historical operating experience. Limited
carryover testing on chlorides, following the EPRI methodology described in the CCIP
training Manual6, is also in progress on some large drum units for possible relaxation of
boiler water targeted normal values. Target normal values and limits with action levels
were created for each unit within the system, using the data sources discussed above.
Along with the values, limits and action levels, a reporting system giving hours within
each action level, average minimum/maximum values, and performance index was
created (Table I.2) to monitor performance of each unit. Some plants took this one step
further by creating flow charts of their system and describing events which could cause
contamination of the feedwater or condensate system. These charts listed operating
guidelines as well as steps to be taken in response to upset conditions. (Figures I.1&I.2)

Performance Indices Development

One of the last steps to tracking performance of each unit was the creation of a “Steam
Purity Performance Index”. A proposed index was created and presented to plant
management and appropriate personnel for comments and possible revisions.
Comments were incorporated and each of the “core” parameters was given a weighted
value as shown in Table I.3. The index is calculated by taking the percentage of time
within the target value range on the Steam Purity Chemistry Control Report and
multiplying it by the weighted value for that parameter. If the parameter values are
within the target value range 100% of the time, the Steam Purity Performance Index
(SPPI) score would be 100.

Example: For one month, a plant maintains all of its “core” cycle chemistry parameters
within their target value ranges for 100% of the time, with the exception of dissolved
oxygen for the CPD. During the month this parameter is within its target value range
only 85% of the time. To determine the impact of this on the Plant’s SPPI for the month,

A-98
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

you would multiply (1.00-0.85) or 0.15 by 2.5 (the CPD’s weighted Value for dissolved
oxygen) to get a reduction in the monthly SPPI of 0.375. This reduction in the plant’s
cycle chemistry performance would then be subtracted from 100% to give a plant SPPI
for the month of 99.625.

A-99
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table I 2 Steam Purity Chemistry Control Report

A-100
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure I.1 Steam Purity Guidelines, Plant I, Units I-1, I-2 & I-3 All-Volatile Treatment

A-101
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure I.2 Steam Purity Guidelines, Plant I, Units I-1, I-2 and I-3
Oxygenated Treatment

A-102
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table I.3
Weighted Values for “Core” Parameters

“Core” Cation Dissolved Sodium pH


Parameter Cond. Oxygen

Supercritical Units

Cond. Pump Disch. 5.0 2.5 2.5 -----

Economizer Inlet 15 5.0 15 25

Steam 15 ------ 15 -----

Oxygenated treatment Units

Cond. Pump Disch. 5.0 ----- 2.5 -----

Polisher Outlet ----- 2.5 ----- -----

Economizes Inlet 20 5.0 ----- 20

Steam 15 ----- 15 -----

Drum Units

Cond. Pump Disch. 5.0 2.5 2.5 -----

Economizer Inlet 15 5.0 15 -----

Boiler Water ----- ----- ----- 25

Steam 15 ----- 15 -----

Examples of CCIP Benefits, Costs, Programmatic and Technical Developments

Reduction in Number of Boiler Tube Failures

Reduction in frequency of outages and percent lost generation due to water related tube
failures is evident by Table I.4 and Figures I.3 and I.4. The number of failures related to
water chemistry have been reduced from 52 in 1992 (when the program started), to a
low of 4 in 1995 (all figures are based upon data as of October 4, 1995). In 1992, the
number of water chemistry related boiler tube failures was 39% of the overall number
of boiler tube failures. In 1995, the number of chemistry related boiler tube failures was
only 6.5% of the overall number of boiler tube failures.

A-103
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table I.4
Costs Due To Water Chemistry (1992 - Present)

1992 1993 1994 1995

Boilers
Number of BTF’s 52 46 28 4
$Cost $141,309 $160,986 $35,220 $16,236
% Lost Generation 12.5 16.3 9.5 1.1
Lost Generation $ $65,824 $169,226 $24,539 $3,505
Turbines
$Cost $3,020,000 $3,980,000 $3,120,000 $2,200,000
Chemical Cleaning
$Cost $208,000 $237,900 $201,700 $91,031
Number of Cleanings 23 16 23 8
$ Grand Total $3,435,134 $4,548,112 $3,381,459 $2,310,771

Figure I.3 % Lost Generation Due to Water Chemistry

A-104
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure I.4 Number of Water-Related BTF’s (1992-1995)

Reduction in Maintenance Costs

The reduction in number of water-chemistry-related tube failures equates to a savings


of $125,000 in boiler maintenance costs (Figure I.5) and $62,300 in lost generation cost.
Chemistry-related damage to turbines ( Table I.4 & Figure I.6) was estimated to be
$2.2 million in 1995, which is a reduction of $820,000 from 1992.

Figure I.5 BTF Associated Costs (1992-1995)

A-105
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure I.6 Turbine Maintenance Costs(1992 - 1995)

Figure I.7 Number of Chemical Cleanings (1992 - 1995)

A-106
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Reduction in Number of Chemical Cleanings/Costs

As a result of better control of water chemistry, extending length of time between


maintenance outages, and conversion of some supercritical units to oxygenated
treatment, Utility I has been able to reduce the number of chemical cleanings from 23 in
1992, to 8 in 1995 (Figure I.7). This has resulted in savings of approximately $117,000
(Figure I.8).

Figure I.8 Cost of Chemical Cleanings (1992-1995)

The number of boiler cleanings and costs of boiler water treatment will continue to be
reduced as more supercritical units are converted from conventional AVT with oxygen
scavenger to oxygenated treatment.

Reduction in water Treatment Costs

Reduction in water treatment costs can be attributed primarily to implementing the two
following programs :

• Conversion Of Supercritical Units To Oxygenated Treatment

Utility I expects to achieve similar savings estimated by the EPRI sponsored utilities
that converted units to oxygenated water treatment. This saving was approximately
$120,000/unit/year, which equates to an estimated $960,000/year once all
supercritical units have been converted.

A-107
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

The Chemical Initiative Program

In May 1992, Utility I began a study entitled Chemical Initiative the purpose of which
was to determine the most cost effective chemical purchasing strategy. The program
was divided into three (3) phases. Phase 1 was spent researching past purchasing and
Energy Production cost reports to determine what the total annual chemical
expenditures were. Given that Utility I spent an average of $11.5 million annually in
this area, reviewing the mechanics was prudent. During this process, it was found that
chemical purchases could be categorized into the following three (3) groupings: bulk
chemicals (i.e. caustic, sulfuric acid, crushed limestone, etc.), chemicals with services
(i.e. water treatment-cooling towers, condensers, etc.) and chemicals with services and
equipment (i.e. reverse osmosis and supercritical boiler chemical cleanings). The
percentage of purchases from each group is illustrated in Figure I.9. Once it was
determined how the dollars were spent, the next step was to identify the vendors with
whom they were spent. When the analysis of vendor activity across chemical groupings
and each plant was completed, the results were obvious. Utility I had from 3 to 9
vendors per plant and 1 to 9 vendors per chemical use group. This seemed excessive
since most of the chemical requirements at the plants were similar and could be met by
the same vendors. There were over 100 contracts with 22 vendors (Figure I.10) many of
which were for the same chemical or service. This meant that Utility I’s buying power,
better known as leverage, was being diluted. At this point, several purchasing
opportunities were identified and pursued. A few of the major ones were to consolidate
orders across use groups/plants, reduce the number of vendors where appropriate, and
issue larger volume and longer-term contracts.

During the next study (Phase 2), one of the activities performed included interviews
with key vendors, “best practice” utilities, and plant personnel. After examining the
data, it appeared as though costs could be reduced through consolidation and revision
of Utility I’s contracting method. In general, no more chemicals or services were
provided than required to do a satisfactory job.

A-108
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure I.9 Shares of Chemical Purchases by Major Grouping

NOTE:* $11.7 million in total purchases excluding $200,000 inventory carrying costs.
** Low volume stock chemicals with no significant saving opportunities

A-109
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Figure I.10 Chemical Consolidation Opportunity Summary

However, it was also felt that the present pricing format based on cost per pound for
chemicals could be part of the problem. Vendors were paid for the amount of chemical
used during treatment. With uncontrollable influences, such as weather, having direct
impact on water quality and the amount of chemicals required for proper treatment,
and without contract mechanisms to contain costs vendors could feed chemicals, drive
costs up, and still comply with commercial terms and service needs. Since no specific
commercial performance requirements were structured in the contracts for the vendor
to operate under fixed costs parameters, Utility I was exposed to any increases
incurred. Surveys of other utilities indicated that cost per pound contracting is a
A-110
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

common practice and they too were considering changing their purchasing methods.
The team felt fixed-price performance-based contracts would remedy this problem.
Subsequent vendor interviews confirmed this was a viable option to pursue. At this
juncture, all potential savings were identified which led into Phase 3 activities.

This phase involved obtaining upper management endorsement of the


recommendations presented during Phases 1& 2. Steps taken during this phase entailed
the following activities: develop recommendations for optimal contracting method for
Chemicals with Services, develop implementation plans to consolidate vendors and
contracts across plants for each chemical groupings, develop a plan to extend longer-
term agreements, and recommend reorganization to centralize both the technical and
commercial approval process. An implementation timetable was prepared which
detailed the requirements to achieve study goals while not jeopardizing plant
operations. This meant certain contracts would be terminated while others put on
monthly extensions to arrive at the appropriate schedule for new orders to be issued.
Once this was completed and presented to the Steering Committee, the approval was
obtained to proceed. After all orders were completed, the overall contracted savings
(from all three groups) was approximately $1,800,000/year.

Overall Savings from Water Treatment Programs

Utility I has implemented a number of steps toward achieving “Best of Class” goals.
Among them are three programs involving water treatment which include: Steam
Purity Monitoring, Oxygenated Treatment, and the Chemical Initiative. Based upon
1992 related costs, the company has saved approximately $3.77 million in 1995, as a
result of all three (3) programs. These savings have been derived from reduced
maintenance cost (boiler and turbine), reduced frequency of chemical cleaning, and
reduced water treatment costs.

Concerns, Problems and Recommendations

Utility I is very pleased with the cost/benefits resulting primarily from the three cycle
chemistry improvement programs previously described, i.e. the Steam Purity
Monitoring, Oxygenated Treatment, and the Chemical Initiative Programs. At an
implementation cost of approximately $4,300,000 over three year period, 1992-1994,
Utility I realized savings of $3,770,000 in 1995 alone. Problems associated with
implementation of the three programs were considered minor. To maintain a
competitive edge, continual vigilance in maintaining steam purity and in searching
for ways to further reduce operating costs associated with corrosion and deposition is
recommended.

Utility I also has an in-house EPRI Boiler Tube Failure Reduction (BTFR) Program4, that
is being run within another section of the same department that the CCIP is being

A-111
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

directed from. Both Programs are being run very successfully, but Utility I would
recommend to any Utility that is planning to implement an EPRI CCIP, that does not
already have an in-house EPRI BTFR Program, that they implement a single combined
CCIP/BTFR Program, such that the synergistic benefits of single source responsibility,
combined Program resources, and combined section or department/company
availability and performance improvement objectives can be realized.

With the implementation of the CCIP at all Utility I fossil stations, and the introduction
and use of the Steam Purity Performance Index for performance evaluations of plant
operating personnel, Utility I appreciates the additional technical support needs of its
plant operating personnel, and recommends that EPRI accelerate its development of a
user-friendly expert system such that the active involvement of operating personnel can
be maximized.

References

1. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment. Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-102285. Final Report, Dec. 1994.

2. Guidelines for Chemical Cleaning of Fossil-Fueled Steam Generating Equipment. Electric


Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-10240. Final Report, June 1993.

3. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Phosphate Treatment for Drum Units
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-103665. Final Report,
Dec. 1994.

4. Boiler Tube Failure Reduction Program. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto
CA. EPRI GS-7454. Final Report, August 1991.

5. Interim Consensus Guidelines on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI CS-4629, Final Report, June 1986.

6. Cycle Chemistry Corrosion and Deposition: Correction, Prevention, and Control. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI TR-103038, Final Report, Dec. 1993.

A-112
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix B Use of Steam Path Audits

Appendix B
USE OF STEAM PATH AUDITS

Introduction

Steam path audits are performed to assess the root causes of turbine performance
deterioration in terms of efficiency losses and heat rate penalties. Some utilities elect to
perform steam path audits during all major turbine overhauls. Others elect to take a
more selective approach, performing the audits only in response to atypically excessive
and otherwise difficult to interpret episodes of performance deterioration.

Many firms offer steam path audit services. An engineer collects the necessary data at
various points during the overhaul; there is ordinarily no negative impact on outage
work scheduling or duration. Data collection activities consist of visual inspection of
steam path parts during turbine disassembly, taking photographs, measurement of
critical thickness and clearances and identification and evaluation of steam leakage
sites, areas subject to mechanical damage and solids particle erosion, and assessment of
surface roughness and deposits. These conditions are normally reassessed upon
completion of turbine maintenance work to determine performance improvements
which may be realized as a result of these efforts.

In most cases, data collection is performed by an engineer representing the firm


providing steam path audit services. Computation of efficiency performance losses
attributable to the various conditions identified is done with proprietary computer
programs. At least one of the firms specializing in steam path audit services will license
the software and provide technical support to end user personnel1.

Sources of Turbine Efficiency Losses

Primary sources of turbine performance degradation include steam leakage, physical


damage, erosion and deposition/corrosion activity. Performance of a steam path audit
permits determination of the presence, extent and overall significance of each source.

B-1
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix B Use of Steam Path Audits

Steam Leakage

Steam leakage may be defined as any condition which allows steam flow to bypass
stationary or rotating turbine components, thereby reducing efficiency in the area
subject to leakage. Sites subject to steam leakage include labyrinth-type packing and tip
seals as well as miscellaneous sources specific to the machine being audited.

Labyrinth-type packing are installed to minimize leakage between stationary and


rotating sections of the turbine. Included are interstage packings (shaft packings and
root spill strips), end packings and radial spill strips. Packing losses are computed by
comparing clearances observed during the audit to design clearances. The audit
engineer measures the clearance between the teeth of the packing and the adjacent
surface (such as the rotor or blade cover) at various locations. The condition of the
packing teeth is also checked since tooth rounding is indicative of either an alignment
problem or solid particle erosion activity. Rounding of packing teeth or loss during
service increases steam leakage and contributes to performance deterioration. Such
losses may be recovered by sharpening of rounded teeth and replacement of missing
teeth. Operating and maintenance practices known to minimize steam leakage related
to uneven packing wear include proper alignment of stationary blade rows and inner
packings, correct placement of insulation to the turbine casing and extraction piping
connections, proper balancing of the turbine rotor and performance of turbine startup
in conformance with stipulated procedures of the manufacturer.

Physical Damage

Physical damage includes general mechanical damage and effects of foreign objects
entering the steam path. Deleterious effects of such damage include creation of flow
blockages, modification of the flow path and degradation of surface roughness. Effects
of roughness have been of interest to researchers for many years 2 and findings of their
work are used extensively in steam path audit programs.

Physical damage effects are assessed by the audit engineer. Measurements and other
data collected are used to compute effects on flow area for each affected stage of the
machine. The area changes determined are then correlated to appraise effects on stage
efficiency. In some instances these computations can indicate individual stage
performance improvements (due to flow path modification effects) despite a net overall
loss for the unit.

To a large extent, the losses attributable to physical damage must be accepted as


unrecoverable losses. The main exceptions are at sites where grit blasting can reduce
surface roughness and parts so severely damaged that they must be replaced.

B-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix B Use of Steam Path Audits

Erosion

Erosion activity serves to degrade the smooth finish of metal surfaces and modify the
steam flow path. In some instances erosion contributes to steam leakage through
damage of packing teeth.

Erosion damage may be caused by either the presence of water droplets in the steam
path or entrainment of exfoliated iron oxide particles from steamside surfaces of
superheaters, reheaters and steam piping and headers3,4. Water droplet erosion is best
avoided by effective surveillance of turbine physical conditions and operation in
accordance with applicable procedures. Exfoliation activity and solid particle erosion
damage to turbines are normally most significant in units with once-through boilers.
Many international utilities largely avoid the problem by provision of turbine bypass
systems. Some utilities in the United States periodically remove the oxide layer by
chemical cleaning before significant exfoliation and solid particle erosion are
experienced5-7. Research has also addressed the feasibility of improving the exfoliation
resistance of superheater and reheater piping as well as erosion-resistant materials and
coatings for use in turbines. These approaches, while feasible, have not been used
extensively in the field, at least in part because of the costs associated with their
application.

Deposition and Corrosion

Steam path deposition and corrosion activity are the source of turbine efficiency losses
of most direct interest to personnel responsible for water chemistry since these
phenomena are directly related to impurity levels in the steam. Corrosion activity
serves to reduce turbine efficiency by means of surface finish degradation effects. This
is, in relative terms, a less severe penalty than the catastrophic damage which can result
from stress corrosion cracking and corrosion fatigue mechanisms, which also require
operation with impurities in the steam.

Steam path deposits act to reduce efficiency by reducing the smoothness of metal
surfaces and by restricting steam flow through the turbine. Previous investigations
have shown that even thin blade deposits can have significant impacts on stage
efficiency; some of these have been described in a previous EPRI publication 8.

It is generally accepted as good practice to fully document any episode of turbine


deposition regardless of whether or not a formal steam path audit is being conducted.
Key activities here include visual examinations, photographing deposition sites and (to
the extent possible) collecting samples of deposit material for laboratory analysis to
determine the composition. Test methods applicable to analysis of turbine deposits
include x-ray diffraction to determine crystalline compounds and scanning electron

B-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix B Use of Steam Path Audits

microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy to determine elements with atomic


numbers of five and above.

Analysis of deposits is necessary to identify the nature and probable origin of the
material. In drum boiler units, chemical transport to the turbine may occur as a result
of mechanical carryover, volatile carryover or as impurities in the feedwater sprayed
into superheater steam for temperature control. Effective cycle chemistry monitoring
programs should permit identification of conditions likely to lead to steam path
deposition and corrosion. Further, such programs allow plant personnel opportunities
to investigate and resolve the problem before significant damage or performance
degradation is experienced.

Efficiency losses due to steam path deposits may be regarded as recoverable, at least to
the extent that material can be removed by grit blasting or other means. However, any
loss of surface smoothness that cannot be restored by deposit removal must be accepted
as an unrecoverable efficiency loss.

Impact of Turbine Deposits on Performance and Efficiency

The extent to which deposits contribute to turbine performance and efficiency losses is
variable. Effects are typically minimal in well-operated units which control chemistry
within limits that have been based on EPRI guidelines. Conversely, in cases where
turbine deposition is actively occurring it can represent a significant and even
prevailing contributor to performance and efficiency losses. This is perhaps best
exemplified in the collective experience of a small yet significant number of utility
plants which periodically perform foamed solvent cleanings of the high pressure
turbine to remove copper deposits9-11,13.

Steam path audits provide an excellent means to quantify the cost penalties associated
with turbine deposits. The findings present management with a clear picture of the
dollar savings possible - largely through reductions in fuel consumption and megawatt
loss - if deposition activity can effectively be controlled.

The experience of the Craig Station at Tri-State Generation and Transmission represents
an excellent case history of how steam path audits were used to justify improvements
12,13
which were reported to offer a net payback acceptable to utility management .

Efficiency losses due to turbine deposits on an annualized basis were reported to be in


excess of $230,000 in Unit 1 and in excess of $630,000 in Unit 2. Most of these costs were
related to efficiency losses in the high pressure turbine. Overall, copper was the most
significant deposit constituent, accounting for 71% and 46% of the high pressure section
capacity losses in Units 1 and 2, respectively. Evaluation of these findings by station
personnel resulted in the following action plan:

B-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix B Use of Steam Path Audits

• conversion of the units from phosphate to volatile boiler water treatment to avoid
mechanical carryover of sodium phosphate, and

• installation of a shared condensate polisher (powdered resin type) for use in


startups to remove preboiler corrosion products, sulfate and silica which would
otherwise be transported to the boiler and turbine.

Favorable operating experience of Unit 3 at Craig Station - which includes a powdered


resin unit - strongly supported the second part of the action plan . Economic
assessment of polisher options determined that a retrofit system could be justified if the
action plan was effective in reducing turbine deposition by 75%. A suitable system was
selected, designed, constructed and placed in service roughly four years after the first
steam path audit. The authors concluded that performance and efficiency losses
quantified by steam path audits provided most of the financial incentive to install the
polisher system. Other benefits considered included differential cost of replacement
power, reduced chemical cleaning costs and other miscellaneous costs.

Experience with copper deposition problems in four utilities using high pressure drum
boilers is summarized in Reference 13. Besides the effects of preboiler cycle materials
and water chemistry practices, the sensitivity of different high pressure turbine inlet
designs to deposits needs to be recognized. Tightly-packed stationary and rotating
blades with small flow passages are more sensitive to deposits.

References

1. Steam Path Audit Brochure. Encotech, Inc. 1993.

2. Forster, V. T. “Performance Loss of Modern Steam-Turbine Plant Due to Surface


Roughness”. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs., 1966-67, Vol. 181, Pt. 1, No. 17.

3. Solid Particle Erosion of Utility Steam Turbines - 1980 EPRI/ASME Workshop. Palo Alto,
CA: Electric Power Research Institute, July 1993. EPRI CS-3178.

4. Solid-Particle Erosion of Utility Steam Turbine: 1985 Workshop. Palo Alto, CA: Electric
Power Research Institute, August 1986, EPRI CS-4683.

5. Guidelines for Chemical Cleaning of Fossil-Fueled Steam-Generating Equipment. Palo Alto,


CA: Electric Power Research Institute, June 1993. EPRI TR-102401.

6. J. Siegmund, S. Yorgiadis, B. Dooley. “Acid Cleaning Guidelines for Superheaters


Reheaters and Main Steam Piping”. Presented at Solid Particle Erosion of Steam
Turbine Components. 1989 Workshop, Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute,
September 1989, EPRI GS-6535.

7. S. Barber, W. Stevens. “Financial Justification Developmental Logic For SteamCycle


Chemical Cleaning”. Presented at the 56th Annual International Water Conference,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.

B-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix B Use of Steam Path Audits

8. Cycle Chemistry Corrosion and Deposition: Correction, Prevention and Control. Palo Alto,
CA: Electric Power Research Institute, December 1993. EPRI TR-103038.

9. M. Hoffmann, “Copper Transport at Miami Fort Station”. Presented at the 14th


Annual Electric Utility Workshop, Champaign, IL, 1994.

10. G. Lawrence. “Chemical Cleaning of HP Turbine as Columbia Energy Center”.


Presented at the 56th International Water Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.

11. B. T. Hagewood. Copper Fouling Northport 4 High-Pressure Steam Turbine. Presented at


the Second Conference On Cycle Chemistry In Fossil Plants. Palo Alto, CA: Electric
Power Research Institute, August 30, 1988.

12. R. Devalois, T. Gilchrist and K. Price. “Justification of the Retrofit of a Condensate


Polishing System at Tri-State G&T's Craig Station”. Presented at EPRI Condensate
Polishing Workshop; Deep Bed and Powdered Resin Systems, New Orleans, LA,
September 15-17, 1993.

13. O. Jonas. “Copper Deposition and Megawatt Loss Problems and Solutions”, 1996
International Water Conference, Pittsburg, PA., October 1996.

B-6
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Appendix C
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF CYCLE
CHEMISTRY INSTRUMENTATION

Introduction

Other utilities considering establishment of tailored Cycle Chemistry Improvement


Programs or indeed just considering developing the optimum cycle chemistry - as
described herein and in Reference 1 - may, in some cases, need to substantially upgrade
their sampling system and/or on-line instrumentation and surveillance capabilities. As
was the case with several of the host utility participants, this may be necessary to meet
EPRI “core” instrumentation requirements. Customization of individual programs may
indicate a benefit in providing additional analyzers not included in the core. Also,
efforts of this type should condenser the adequacy of the existing sample conditioning
systems to support an expanded suite of instruments as well as applicable approaches
for management of chemistry data.

Development of “Core” Chemistry Parameters, Sample Points and Monitoring


Approaches

As part of the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program (CCIP), initial EPRI chemistry
guidelines and related projects to monitor cycle chemistry and assess international
experience were examined2-6. The intent was to establish a minimum level of on-line
instrumentation considered essential to reliably monitor cycle chemistry. All utilities
which participated in the program were expected to determine if available resources for
on-line monitoring of chemistry conformed to this minimum level and to plan to
address any deficiencies identified. As indicated in other parts of the report, some
utility plants met or exceeded the minimum requirements while others needed to
upgrade existing capabilities.

Table C.1 (a) delineates the minimal instrumentation or “core” parameters which CCIP
participants were expected to monitor. Other chemistry parameter/sample point
combinations included in the original EPRI Interim Consensus Guidelines were
designated as additional monitoring or diagnostic parameters. These are summarized in
Table C.1 (b). CCIP participants were not required to monitor any of the table C.1 (b)

C-1
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

criteria. However, all participants elected to monitor some of these parameters


independently as part of their plant-specific programs.
Table C.1
(a) Core” CCIP Monitoring Parameters
(Minimum level of instruments that all plants/units should have)

Parameter Measurement Locations Usage Frequency

Cation Conductivity CP Discharge O C


Cation Conductivity Polisher Outlet and Economizer Inlet O C
Cation Conductivity Hot Reheat Steam or Main Steam O C
2
Cation Conductivity Blowdown or Downcomer O C
pH (Drum Boilers) Blowdown or Downcomer O C
Dissolved Oxygen CP Discharge and Economizer Inlet O C
Sodium CP Discharge O C
Sodium Polisher Outlet or Economizer Inlet O C
Sodium Hot Reheat Steam or Main Steam O C

Table C.1 - Continued


(b) Additional Monitoring or Diagnostic Parameters

Parameter Measurement Locations Usage Frequency

pH Economizer Inlet O C
Specific Conductivity Economizer Inlet and Treated Makeup O C
Silica Treated Makeup O C
1
Phosphate Blowdown or Downcomer O or G C or S
2
Cloride Blowdown or Downcomer O or G C or D

Iron Economizer Inlet G W


Copper Economizer Inlet G W
Total Organic Carbon Condensate Pump Discharge G W
Air Inleakage Air Removal System O or G C or D

1 - Drum Boilers on Phosphate Treatment 2 - Drum Boilers on All-Volatile treatment


O - On-Line D - Grab Once/Day
G - Grab W - Grab Once/Week
S - Grab Once/Shift C - Continuous or Semi-Continuous

C-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Table C.2
Summary of EPRI “Core” Parameters for Different Treatment Approaches

Sample Point/Parameter Treatment Approach and Monitoring Frequency


1 2 3 4
Phosphate All-Volatile Oxygenated Sodium Hydroxide
Makeup System Effluent

Specific Conductivity C - C C
Silica C - C C
Air Removal System Exhaust

Air In-Leakage D - - S
Condensate Pump Discharge
Sodium C C C C
Cation Conductivity C C C C
Total Organic Carbon W - - W
Oxygen C or S C - C
5
Condensate Polisher Effluent

Sodium C C C C
Cation Conductivity C C C C
Silica - - C -
Oxygen - - C -
6
Economizer Inlet

pH C C - C
Specific Conductivity C - - C
Cation Conductivity C C C C
Iron W - - W
Copper W - - W
Oxygen C C C C
7
Boiler Water

Silica C or S - - C or S
pH C C - C or S
Specific Conductivity C - - C
Phosphate C or S - - -
Na/PO4 Ratio D - - -

C-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Sample Point/Parameter Treatment Approach and Monitoring Frequency

1 2 3 4
Phosphate All-Volatile Oxygenated Sodium Hydroxide

Cation Conductivity - C C -
Oxygen - - C -
Chloride - - - D
Sodium Hydroxide - - - C or S
Saturated Steam

Sodium - - - T
Reheat or Superheated Steam

Sodium C C C C
Cation Conductivity C C C C

Notes:
1. Figure 3.2, Reference 7. 5. If applicable.
2. Figure 3.2, Reference 8. 6. Also applicable to attemporation water.
3. Figure 4.1, Reference 9. 7. Not applicable to once-through boilers.
4. Figure 2, Reference 10. 8. Preferred sampling point is reheat steam in units
with reheaters, superheat steam in units without
reheaters.

LEGEND

C = Continuous Monitoring S = Grab, once per shift


D = Grab, once per day T = Troubleshooting & Commissioning
W = Grab, once per week

Subsequent to the inception of CCIP, EPRI established revised chemistry guidelines for
phosphate7, all-volatile8 and oxygenated treatment9, as well as a document reviewing
worldwide experience with sodium hydroxide treatment10. Each of these reports
includes revised “core” (or key cycle chemistry) parameters, designated to reflect
specific characteristics of these chemistries. Table C.2 summarizes the “core” parameters
applicable to each of these treatment approaches.

Evaluation Criteria

Several criteria need to be evaluated when judging which of the candidate instruments
identified as applicable to monitoring a given cycle chemistry parameters should be
considered for selection. The following discussion reviews some of the more significant
criteria which should be factored into the selection process. Experiences of a number of
utilities with which the Project Team is familiar are reflected, with strong emphasis

C-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

given to the approach taken by those program participants that significantly upgraded
their chemistry surveillance capabilities between 1992 and 1995. Major criteria which
should be assessed during the evaluation and selection process include the following
items.

Sampling System Capabilities

To the extent possible, the selected instrumentation should be able to be directly


integrated into the existing sample conditioning system and analyzer panel. This
involves determining if sample flow rates, temperatures and pressure are consistent
with instrument specification requirements. Also, in cases of installing new analyzers
into an existing panel, it is necessary to verify that space availability and operating
environment are acceptable for the candidate instruments.

It is also desirable to compare compatibilities and features of the existing sampling


system to criteria established by EPRI. These are noted in Table C.38. Utility personnel
following this process may identify deficiencies in the existing sample conditioning
system which need to be addressed to allow utilization of analyzers under
consideration. Partial or complete refurbishing of sample conditioning facilities maybe
needed. Initiation of necessary improvements will generally create opportunities for
greater flexibility in analyzer selection.

Sample conditioning facilities at many domestic plants are centralized; all sample flows
are directed to a single location. This approach is usually followed to minimize costs
associated with supply of cooling water, power, and appropriate environment for the
analyzers. Also, labor requirements associated with collection of grab samples and
taking of analyzer readings are minimized.

Centralized sample conditioning systems can introduce error into measurement of


some parameters. Most notable among these are oxygen, hydrazine (or other
scavengers) and corrosion products. In the case of oxygen and scavenger treatments,
the problem is the residence time in the sample line, which may allow for additional
reaction between oxygen and the treatment; this effect is enhanced when sample filters
are in use. To avoid or at least minimize these effects, sample lines should be a short as
practical and sample filters should not be used.

Long sample lines also have detrimental effects on any suspended corrosion products
which may be present. Deposition of these materials in the line leads to either flow
restriction or plugging. In some instances, deposited corrosion products may become
reentrained in the flowing sample; this phenomenon is sometimes referred to as “crud
bursts”. Effective surveillance of corrosion products generally requires a continuously
flowing sample. Temperature and pressure reductions should be affected as close

C-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Table C.3
Summary of Criteria for Sampling

Sample Criteria

Pressurized Condensate and Feedwater with 9 Isokinetic sampling velocity


Representative Sampling of Particulates 9 Velocity of 5-6 ft/s (1.5 - 1.8 m/sec)
9 Primary sample cooler at sample source
9 Isokinetic sampling probe
Boiler Water from Blowdown Lines or 9 Velocity of 5-6 ft/s (1.5 - 1.8 m/sec)
Circulation Pump Manifold 9 Primary sample cooler at sample source
Boiler Water from a Downcomer or Other 9 Isokinetic sampling velocity
Pipeline 9 Velocity of 5-6 ft/s (1.5 - 1.8 m/sec) if
consistent with isokinetic requirements
9 Primary sample cooler at sample source
9 Isokinetic sampling probe
Saturated Steam from Steam Leads 9 Isokinetic sampling velocity
9 EPRI single port nozzle located 0.75 to 2
steam lead diameters from the steam lead
inlet
9 Sufficient nozzles should be used to
provide sampling of a representative fraction
of all steam leads along the drum
9 Primary sample cooler at sample source
From Larger Diameter Lines 9 Isokinetic sampling probe
From Dry Pan Sampler 9 Velocity of 5-6 ft/s (1.5 - 1.8 m/sec)
Superheated Steam 9 Isokinetic EPRI probe
9 Primary sample cooler at sample source
Condensate at Subatmospheric Pressure 9 Velocity of 5-6 ft/s (1.5 - 1.8 m/sec)
9 Large diameter sample nozzles net
positive suction head actual (NPSHA),
greater than net positive suction head
required (NPSHR) at all conditions

C-6
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

to the source as practical to minimize sample linelength. This approach is desirable


whether the intent is to collect grab samples for laboratory analysis or to utilize
integrated corrosion product sampler devices.

Additional information and guidance regarding sample extraction and conditioning are
available in other EPRI publications3,6,8,11. Also, utility personnel should consider a new
report (publication pending) from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. This
document, entitled, “Steam and Water Sampling, Conditioning and Analysis in the
Power Cycle”, was prepared by the Performance Test Codes Committee (PTC 19.11).

Compatibility With Data Management Approach

Advances in controls and computers have resulted in substantial improvements in the


ability to monitor and manage chemistry data. Typically, the output of on-line monitors
will be tied to either a dedicated, computer-based data acquisition system or the plant
network system. These capabilities are still supplemented by data recorders at many
plants. As part of the evaluation and selection process, it is necessary to assess the
features of instrumentation under consideration as they relate to existing or planned
(future) capabilities in this area. Ultimately, this is expected to include water chemistry
expert systems, capable of data acquisition, management, and analysis (including
identification of appropriate response actions to implement when excursions are
encountered).

Instrument Performance

General reliability as well as accuracy and precision are important criteria. Limits of
detection should be low enough to permit surveillance of plant specific target limits for
the parameter of interest. The operating range should cover all action levels established.
Instruments for which performance has been or can be easily validated should be given
strongest consideration4. In general, instrumentation that employs a physical means of
measurement as opposed to colorimetric/photometric methods is preferred. For some
parameters (e.g., silica and phosphate) colorimetric/photometric techniques must be
used.

Calibration Requirements and Procedures

Analyzers with autocalibration capability are preferable since labor requirements are
reduced. The frequency at which manual calibration is needed as well as time required
to perform the procedure should also be evaluated for each instrument under
consideration.

C-7
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Maintenance Requirements

Frequency and cost of instrument maintenance which can be provided by plant


personnel may be variable and can therefore represent a significant factor in the
instrument evaluation and selection process. The experience of others is often surveyed
to determine if any of the analyzers under consideration appear to be maintenance
labor intensive. Approved procedures of the American Society for Testing and
Materials provide useful information on maintenance requirements of many on-line
analyzers12.

Reagents and Other Consumable Usage

The cost of chemical reagents and other consumable (such as membranes for dissolved
oxygen analyzers) needs to be examined. Reagent handling requirements can also be
important since some chemicals may be defined as hazardous materials. These criteria
need only be considered for those analyzers which are known or can be proven to be
reliable. This generally requires use of reagent grade water12 and warranted standards
for calibration and standardization.

Spare Parts

The cost of recommended “in stock” spare parts as well as others which may be needed
should be defined. The source of spare parts (domestic or international) and turnaround
time for delivery to the plant site should also be checked.

Warranties and Service Agreements

Many instruments can be obtained with service agreements. Usually these are optional
but may be required in some cases. Costs and features of these agreements as well as
the duration and scope of warranty coverage need to be defined for all instruments
under consideration.

Supplier Service and Support

To some extent, the acceptability of instrument supplier services and support can be
determined by reviewing the language of the warranty and service agreement
statements. Input from other end users experienced with products under consideration
should be conducted to get feedback on personnel training and demonstrations,
support during instrument commissioning, and response time to emergency service
requests.

C-8
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Instrument Capital Cost

Initial costs associated with obtaining analyzers are certainly an important factor in the
decision process. Utilities considering system-wide upgrades may be able to secure
volume price discounts. Unfortunately, they are too often relied upon as the sole or at
least dominant criterion in choosing instrumentation. Life cycle assessments which
account for integration of analyzers with sampling and data management systems,
calibration and maintenance costs, costs of reagents, consumable and space parts, and
training, service and support - as well as capital costs - provide a better indication of the
true cost of instruments under consideration. Individual plants embarking upon
projects to upgrade chemistry monitoring capabilities are encouraged to take a
comprehensive assessment approach which considers all of these criteria. The degree of
emphasis to be placed on each item should be based on existing plant and unit specific
conditions which may influence the assessment activities.

Identification of Candidate Instruments

A 1995 EPRI publication, Reference Manual for On-Line Monitoring of Water Chemistry and
Corrosion, is an excellent source of information and guidance for any utility plant
seeking to improve their chemistry instrumentation 13. Part II of the manual, dealing
with water chemistry instrumentation, includes sections on chlorine, conductivity,
hydrazine, hydrogen, ion chromatography, iron and copper, oxygen, pH, phosphate,
silica, sodium, total organic carbon and turbidity. The scope of coverage is applicable to
those with interest in monitoring chemistry of cooling water and makeup pretreatment
as well as within the steam-water cycle.

Other desirable features of the reference manual include:

• Discussions of sample extraction and conditioning requirements and data validation


techniques. These are essentially summaries of more extensive presentation of topics
covered in previous EPRI documents3,4,6.

• Identification of various user groups with personnel contacts.

• Presentation of information on availability and use of on-line corrosion monitors,


instrumentation for measurement of corrosion potential and redox potential and
corrosion product monitoring techniques.

• Overview of emerging technologies applicable to surveillance of water chemistry


and corrosion.

• List of instrument manufacturers and suppliers.

• List of utility end users.

C-9
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Sections which present the individual water chemistry analyzers feature a series of
tables which summarize several items of interest to utilities considering acquisition of
instrumentation. The topics covered include:

• Location (sample points) and extent of usage in fossil and nuclear plants.

• Manufacturers and suppliers (including models still in use but no longer in


production).

• Instrument price ranges and performance characteristics.

• Performance characteristics.

• Analog outputs and interfaces.

• Recommended instrument location for reliable performance.

• Water sample requirements.

• Difficulties encountered during installation and commissioning.

• Recommended calibration and maintenance.

• End users list of strength and weaknesses.

• Period of use and end users reliability rating.

• End user reported minimum useful service life.

• List of end user contact personnel.

To keep information in the reference manual current, EPRI has initiated a project to
13,14
update the document. The second edition is scheduled for publication in early 1997 .

Other methods utility plants may consider when establishing a list of qualified
instrument suppliers include:

• Referrals from other plants in the system.

• Referrals from other utilities.

• Referrals from user groups such as FOMIS.

• Referrals from consultants, vendors and architect engineer firms.

C-10
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Obtaining input on water chemistry instrumentation from these sources should result
in a number of qualified manufacturers and suppliers for Cycle Chemistry
Improvement Program “core” parameters as well as any others of specific interest to
utility plant personnel.

In Plant Assessments

Whenever feasible, it is considered good practice to arrange for in-plant trials of any
instrumentation under serious consideration for permanent installation. Virtually all
instrument suppliers and manufacturers are willing to provide demonstration
analyzers for this purpose. For typical evaluation periods of 90 to 180 days, analyzers
are usually provided for a nominal charge or at no cost whatsoever.

This approach allows plant personnel to become familiar with instrumentation under
consideration. Trials may be conducted in series or parallel as desired. Parallel trials are
perhaps more informative (since they allow comparison of candidate analyzers under
the same unit service conditions) but they also are more labor intensive as compared to
assessments performed in series. The primary advantage of in-plant trials is that more
objective assessments of instrument reliability, calibration frequency and maintenance
requirements can be established than is possible through contacting other end users.

Recommendations to Management

Results of comparative evaluations and findings of in-plant assessments should serve as


the basis of recommendations to management on what instrumentation should be
procured to best satisfy the overall objectives of the plant with respect to upgrading of
chemistry surveillance capabilities. This process will be most thorough and beneficial if
performed by the Cycle Chemistry Improvement Program Plant Team, supported by
other plant and corporate personnel as appropriate. This is particularly desirable with
respect to evaluation of in-plant trials. Opinions of operation, maintenance and
technical personnel should be documented and carefully considered. Properly
performed, recommendations resulting from such evaluations should be easily
understood, accepted and approved by management. Involvement of those personnel
bearing ultimate responsibility for chemistry surveillance, plant operations and
instrument maintenance generally leads to better acceptance and support during
installation and commissioning of new analyzers.

Experience of CCIP Utilities

Two of the utilities which participated in the program engaged in extensive upgrading
of sampling systems and on-line analyzers. In each instance, all of the fossil plants in the
system were committed to the program.

C-11
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Individuals responsible for cycle chemistry at these utilities (including designated CCIP
Team members) considered analyzers from several manufacturers which offered
capabilities and features consistent with their needs. The preceding discussions of
evaluation criteria, identification of candidate instruments, in-plant assessments and
recommendations to management are, in large part, based on the approach used, and
the experience of these utilities15,16.

By following this approach, the utilities identified instruments which were clearly
preferred for use within their plants. Management accepted the importance of
providing minimum levels of sampling and instrumentation as integral to cycle
chemistry improvement. As a result, the recommendations of the chemistry personnel
from each utility were approved.

Specification of Cycle Chemistry Analyzers

To ensure suitability and reliability in the intended application, it is essential that the
capabilities of the on-line analyzer conform to the requirements of the purchaser.
Inclusion of technical specification in procurement packages help insure that
instrumentation selected and purchased is appropriate with respect to chemistry
program criteria, plant environment and sampling systems, and other requirements of
end-user personnel.

In some respects, technical specifications for on-line water chemistry analyzers are
generic in nature; in others, they should be regarded as site-specific. Table C.4 is a
template which utility personnel may use to develop technical specifications for various
analyzer/sample point combinations of interest. The format is structured to allow
flexibility in selection of capabilities and features of interest; it also requires inclusion of
plant and unit-specific characteristics which will influence analyzer applicability in
individual applications.

C-12
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Table C.4
Technical Specification For Water Chemistry Analyzers

Parameter____________________________

Sample Point(s)____________________________

Plant/Unit____________________________

Technical Requirements

Range of Measurement____________________________

Display:

• Read-out____________________________

• Alarms____________________________

• Other____________________________

Interface Requirements:

• Recorder____________________________

• Personal Computer____________________________

• Data Logger____________________________

• Plant Computer/
LAN System____________________________

• Analog Output________________________

• Other____________________________

Sample Supply Characteristics

Physical Data:

• Flow Rate____________________________

• Temperature____________________________

• Pressure____________________________

C-13
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Sample System:

• Sample Line Diameter____________________________

• Sample Line Material____________________________

• Distance From Source to


Analyzer____________________________

• Other____________________________

Analyzer Location And Environment

Location:

• Central Panel_________________________

• Remote Panel____________________________

• Physical Layout____________________________

Environment:

• Open Air____________________________

• Air Conditioned____________________________

• Humidity Control____________________________

• Vibration____________________________

• Dust____________________________

• Vapors____________________________

• Electric Fields____________________________

• Other____________________________

C-14
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

Instrument Performance, Data Validation Techniques, Calibration,


Maintenance and Spare Parts

Vendor shall provide a statement of instrument performance characteristics (accuracy,


precision, bias, drift and response time) under stipulated application conditions.
Techniques and procedures which may be used to validate performance shall be
included in bid submittals. Vendors shall develop and submit schedules for calibration
and maintenance along with a spare parts inventory appropriate to ensure an
availability level of at least ____ percent during the first ___ years of service.

Analyzer Installation, Startup and Commissioning

Installation:

• By Utility____________________________

• By Vendor____________________________

Startup and Commissioning:

• By Utility____________________________

• By Vendor____________________________

Schedules:

• Included____________________________

• To Be Developed By Vendor____________________________

Personnel Training:

• Required____________________________

• Not Required____________________________

C-15
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

The following appendix subsections provide guidance on use of Table C-4

Parameter, Sample Point And Plant/Unit

These items should be filled in by utility personnel developing the specification.

Technical Requirements

Range of measurement is dependent on the chemistry parameter to be monitored, the


sample point location, control limits for the parameter, and values which may be
expected during chemistry upsets or transient operating conditions. Table C.5 provides
guidance for eight of the more commonly purchased water chemistry analyzers.
Suggested ranges in the table reflect both EPRI guidelines (including target values and
action levels) and features of commercially available analyzers.
Table C.5
Range Of Measurement For Commonly Applied Cycle Chemistry Analyzers

Parameter Sample Points Range of Measurement

Conductivity, Specific Boiler Water 0-20 or 0-200 µS/cm


All Others 0-20 µS/cm
Conductivity, Cation All 0-20 µS/cm
Hydrazine All 0-200 ppb N2H4
Oxygen All 0-200ppb O2
pH All 0-14 pH units
Phosphate Boiler Water 0-20 ppm PO4
Silica Boiler Water 0-5000 ppb SiO2
All Others 0-50 ppb SiO2
Sodium All 0-1000 ppb Na
Note: With the exception of pH, nearly all modern analyzers offer variable range capabilities
(either manually adjustable or autoranging).

Utility personnel preparing the specifications may designate and define one or more of
the selections indicated for instrument display and interface requirements. Alternative
requirements not included in the selection list may be included where appropriate.

Sample Supply Characteristics

The specification should provide details describing the sample to be supplied to the
instrument in order for bidders to propose analyzers which will operate reliably in

C-16
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

accordance with utility technical requirements. Key criteria are included in Table C.4
with space provided to allow inclusion of any other characteristics considered relevant
in individual units.

To ensure that samples directed to the analyzer are representative of conditions within
the unit, supply characteristics should conform to criteria published in prior EPRI
reports1,3,6,13. In general, commercially available analyzers are quite compatible with
samples conditioned in accordance with these criteria. Any deficiencies which preclude
attainment of these characteristics should be corrected to maximize benefit of on-line
monitoring.

Analyzer Location and Environment

Performance and reliability of water chemistry analyzers may be affected by conditions


present at the point of use. Important examples include variations in temperature and
humidity, presence of dust and/or chemical vapors in the air, and potential interference
related to electrical (or magnetic) fields and mechanical vibration. These factors as well
as any others applicable to the location and prevailing environmental conditions in
existence need to be clearly detailed for consideration by vendor personnel.

Instrument Performance, Data Validation Techniques, Calibration,


Maintenance Requirements and Spare Parts Inventory

The specification should require prospective vendors to submit definitive statements of


performance attainable with the analyzer under the application conditions stipulated.
Excluding initial commissioning activities and startup periods, quality instrumentation,
if properly maintained, should be able to achieve an availability rating of 90 percent for
the first five years of service. The vendors should also be required to identify preferred
data validation approaches. In addition, they should develop specific calibration and
maintenance procedures and spare parts inventories if needed to comply with
utility-designated goals for instrument performance.

Analyzer Installation, Startup and Commissioning

Responsibility for installation, startup and commissioning of new analyzers may be


assumed by the utility or requested from the vendor organization. The specification
should indicate the desired arrangement. Scheduling for these activities should be
provided by the utility (if known) or requested of the vendor in cases where they will
assume full responsibility.

Whenever plant personnel are unfamiliar with water chemistry analyzers under
consideration, it is good practice to arrange for training. Needs in this regard should be

C-17
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

stated in the specifications to allow vendors to address this issue during bid
preparation.

Quality Assurance and Control

Even when the approach taken to sample extraction and conditioning is appropriate
and suitable on-line analyzers are installed, responsible utility plant personnel need to
continually evaluate and document the quality of output data from the system. Only in
this way can meaningful assessment and interpretation of the chemistry data be
performed to ensure enactment of suitable response action in a timely manner, this to
avoid availability losses associated with corrosion and deposition activity. The
summary discussion which follows is based on a presentation included in the
guidelines for all-volatile treatment8.

A quality assurance (QA) program applicable to all cycle chemistry measurements is


essential if meaningful comparisons are to be made between measurements at different
points within the cycle, between the same point in the cycle in different plants or units,
and between specific points in the cycle and the plant's (or EPRI's) chemistry guidelines.
The QA program must include quality control (QC) procedures for both grab sample
and continuous instrument measurements. To follow the instrument manufacturers'
calibration procedures is generally not sufficient, as these procedures seldom employ
traceable standards. More importantly, they generally do not determine reproducibility
(intra-instrument standard deviation) nor recovery so that instrument performance may
be documented and trends in performance readily observed. Periodic validation of
measurement procedures, especially continuous instrument procedures, by making
replicate measurements on a continuously flowing standard generates a record that can
be compared readily with suggested acceptance limits derived from the EPRI RP2712-3
program4. Charting the record of validation results allows early detection and
correction of problems with instrument accuracy. Close control of cycle chemistry
requires accurate chemistry measurements. With effective control, the full benefits of
EPRI Cycle Chemistry Guidelines can be achieved.

Analytical quality control techniques must be incorporated into laboratory procedures


if reliable results are to be obtained. A quality control program provides for the reliable
detection/correction of problems and statistical analysis of performance. The objective
of such a program is to identify and eliminate statistically significant measurement
errors so data can be used reliably to control cycle chemistry.

Unacceptable analytical variability arises from numerous causes, including the


following:

• Incorrect analytical procedures.

C-18
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

• Calibration errors or failure to calibrate at proper intervals.

• Poor technique in following analytical procedures.

• Degradation of reagents and standards utilized in analyses or calibration.

• Improper sampling procedures.

• Contamination of the sample during collection and storage.

• Reaction of the sample with the sample container due to either improper selection of
container type or excessive storage periods.

• Chemical reactions during sample storage due to either excessive storage periods or
improper preservation techniques.

• Biological growth in the sample container.

Quality control programs must provide guidelines for calibration and standardization
of all laboratory equipment and preparation and handling of reagents. They must
establish procedures for estimating precision, bias, and sensitivity for the analytical
methods to be followed. Limitations in the availability of equipment, number of
samples, or time and experience of testing personnel can affect the reliability of the data
obtained. Individual quality assurance programs and quality control procedures need
to consider these plant-specific characteristics.

Systematic and random errors must be controlled to the maximum practical extent
before evaluating precision and accuracy. Random error is present in any set of analyses
in which repeated measurements are taken on the same sample. Random errors are the
scatter of measurements about the true value. Systematic errors are referred to as bias
and result from a tendency for the data to be greater or smaller than the true value.

Reduction in systematic errors can be accomplished through following approved


analytical procedures, use of traceable standards, consistent personnel performance,
and adhering to purity criteria for reagents used in all analyses. Reagent water is a
major source of systematic error; therefore, care should be used in its preparation and
handling to avoid contamination. Quality assurance and control issues applicable to
cycle chemistry surveillance are, in many respects, similar to those of environmental
laboratories. The content of an EPRI document on QA/QC guidelines for
environmental laboratories is, in large measure, relevant to programs and procedures
for quality cycle chemistry measurements17.

Various methods of evaluation of performance are available. A useful and convenient


way to monitor the precision and accuracy of a method is to construct control charts.
Control charts are used to evaluate the quality of the measurement process. Individual,

C-19
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

multiple sample, and X-R control charts can be generated. Individual and multiple
control charts operate similarly; however, multiple control charts span a range of
concentrations, which avoids potential bias. The X-R control chart incorporates
changes in the mean value (X), and changes in the standard deviation (S), thereby
making it the most useful of the three charts available.

Effective programs typically include provisions for intra-laboratory and


inter-laboratory comparisons. Intra-laboratory comparisons identify the variability of
analytical results for several analyses of a standard sample. The technique is especially
helpful in identification of errors attributable to the techniques of individual analysts,
equipment, or reagent supplies. Inter-laboratory programs can be used to determine
requirements and procedures necessary to assure attainment of desired quality
standards.

Quality assurance programs and control procedures normally stipulate provisions for
periodic review (or audit) by an independent party with suitable qualifications. Audits
may be initiated either to evaluate specific areas of concern or to provide an overall
assessment of program merits and deficiencies.

A quality control program must be implemented for all analyses and must be evaluated
on a regular basis to remain effective. A formal quality assurance program, with written
instructions and formal documentation of its implementation, is required. Plant
chemistry manuals should also reflect quality control provisions. Analytical procedures
and data evaluation methods must be established to detect quality control problems
early and correct them as soon as possible. When properly executed, a quality assurance
program will provide measurements of the desired precision and bias, together with the
associated documentation.

C-20
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

References

1. Cycle Chemistry Corrosion and Deposition: Correction, Prevention and Control. Palo Alto,
CA: Electric Power Research Institute, December 1993. EPRI TR-103038.

2. Interim Consensus Guidelines on Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry. Palo Alto, CA: Electric
Power Research Institute, October 1991. EPRI CS-4629, V3.

3. Guideline Manual on Instrumentation and Control for Fossil Plant Cycle Chemistry.
Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, April 1987. EPRI CS-5164.

4. Monitoring Cycle Water Chemistry in Fossil Plants, Volume 1: Monitoring Results.


Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, October 1991. EPRI GS-7556, V1.

5. Monitoring Cycle Water Chemistry in Fossil Plants, Volume 2: International Water


Treatment Practices in Fossil Fuel Units. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research
Institute , December 1992. EPRI GS-7556, Vol. 2.

6. Monitoring Cycle Water Chemistry in Fossil Plants, Volume 3: Project Conclusions and
Recommendations. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, December 1993.
EPRI GS-7556, V3.

7. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Phosphate Treatment for Drum Units.
Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, December, 1994. EPRI TR-103665.

8. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: All-Volatile Treatment. Palo Alto, CA:
Electric Power Research Institute, TR-105041, Publication Pending.

9. Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants: Oxygenated Treatment. Palo Alto, CA:
Electric Power Research Institute, December 1994. EPRI TR-102285.

10. Sodium Hydroxide for Conditioning the Boiler Water of Drum-Type Boilers. Palo Alto,
CA: Electric Power Research Institute, January 1995. EPRI TR-104007.

11. Development of a Steam Sampling System. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research
Institute, December 1991. EPRI TR-100196.

12. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1996 Annual Book of ASTM Standards:
Water, Vols. 11.01 and 11.02. Philadelphia, PA, 1996.

13. Reference Manual for On-Line Monitoring of Water Chemistry and Corrosion. Palo Alto,
CA: Electric Power Research Institute, March 1995. EPRI TR-104928.

14. Personal communications with Dr. Barry Syrett, Electric Power Research Institute,
December 1995.

15. Personal communications with Mr. Charles Nerone, Illinois Power Company,
September 1996.

16. Personal communications with Mr. Bill Martin, Houston Lighting and Power,
September 1996.

C-21
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix C Evaluation and Selection of Cycle Chemistry Instrumentation

17. Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Environmental Laboratories, Design Guidelines.
Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, March 1989. EPRI GS-6528.

C-22
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Appendix D
UTILITY CCIP PHILOSOPHY STATEMENTS

Examples of Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

This appendix contains a copy of the Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement
developed for this project, and copies of CCIP program statements from KPL of
Western Resources Company, Ohio Edison, and Houston Lighting and Power
Company.

D-1
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 1

D-2
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 2

D-3
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 3

D-4
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 4

D-5
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 5

D-6
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 6

D-7
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Generic Utility CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 7

D-8
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

KPL CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 1

D-9
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

KPL CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 2

D-10
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

KPL CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 3

D-11
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

KPL CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 4

D-12
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

KPL CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 5

D-13
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

KPL CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 6

D-14
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

KPL CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 7

D-15
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Policy Statement-Page 1

D-16
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Policy Statement-Page 2

D-17
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Policy Statement-Page 3

D-18
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 4

D-19
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 5

D-20
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 6

D-21
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 7

D-22
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 8

D-23
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

Ohio Edison CCIP Philosophy Statement-Page 9

D-24
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

HL & P CCIP Management Directive-Page 1

D-25
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

HL & P CCIP Management Directive-Page 2

D-26
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

HL & P CCIP Management Directive-Page 3

D-27
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix D Utility CCIP Philosophy Statements

HL & P CCIP Management Directive-Page 4

D-28
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table B.1 Percent Of Operating Time In Each Level


May 14, 1990-November 1, 1990
(Representative Of All Participating Units)

Boilerwater

Constituent Normal Action Action Action


Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Chloride 70% 22% 7% 1%


Silica 94% 5% 1% -
Phosphate 44% 56% - -
pH 18% 82% - -

Feedwater

Ammonia 82% 18% - -


Hydrazine 62% 38% - -
pH 95% 4% 1% -
Cation Conductivity 68% 12% 6% 14%
Oxygen Deaerator In 37% 63% - -
Oxygen Deaerator Out 97% 3% - -

Table B.2 Condenser Retubing Activity Summary

Unit Year Cost

B1-7 Titanium 1983 $2,500,000


B2-1 90/10 Cu/Ni 1985 $2,000,000
B2-2 90/10 Cu/Ni 1986 $2,000,000
B1-6 Titanium 1991 $2,245,000
B1-4 Titanium 1992 $2,330,000
B1-5 Titanium 1994 $2,500,000

Total $13,575,000

A-15
EPRI Licensed Material
Appendix A Utility Results

Table B.3 Chemistry-Related Projects; 1986-1995

Year Project Description Cost

1986 Condensate Polishers (2 Units) Upgrade of Underdrain $75,000


Laterals

1987 Condensate Polishers (2 Units) Upgrade Controls and $75,000


Instrumentation

1990 New Chemical Control Instrumentation and Monitors $700,000


(5 Units), Includes Most EPRI Core” Parameters

1990 Makeup Demineralizers (1 Station) Conductivity and Flow $50,000


Instrumentation

1991 Makeup Demineralizers (1 Station) Conductivity and Flow $50,000


Instrumentation

1993 Automate Makeup Water Additions and New Ammonia $480,000


Feed Systems (3 Units)

1994 Makeup Demineralizers (2 Stations) Upgrade Controls $240,000

1995 Condensate Polisher (1 Unit) Upgrade Controls and $350,000


Instrumentation

1994-5 Install New Sodium Analyzers (6 Units) $220,000

Total $2,240,000

• cycle chemistry performance review and quality control,

• resin and carbon quality control,

• chemical cleaning quality control,

• discussion of progress on chemistry related action items,

• identification of new chemistry-related issues requiring action, and

• definition and assignment of action items for the next quarter.

A-16

Вам также может понравиться