p. 1 

# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 20 ) ll-A-4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:52 AM Sheet 20of 276TE T jcill

—: i :u—i ^ • u o—is u . u<->•- » n— . ^ — P. 2

tJ

, -J U f n II-A- 4 

## MEMORANDU

M TO : Nancy Ketc , U.S . EP A FROM : Caroly n Lang , RCG/Hagler , Bailly , Inc . &b£ > DATE : September

13 , 199 0 SUBJECT : Lif

e Extensio n Pape r

- Fina l Draf t

Attache d i s th e final draf

t o f th e Lif e Extensio n Paper

wit h final cos t

estimates . Although th e pape r i s i n a n easy-to-rca

d format , i t

assume s ahig

h leve l o f knowledg e o

f utilit y ling o an d operatin g practice . I

f yo u would lik

e m e t o ton e i t down , le t me know and I wil

l re writ e som e sections . ' I a mforwarding thi s fina

l draf t t o yo u b y Fed..E x wit h adiskette i

n Wor d Perfec t 5. 0 forma t s o tha t yo u can mak

e modification s t

o th e pape r

as needed . A s afollow-u

p t o thi s project , w

e coul d d o som

e detaile d investigatio n int o existin g projec t cost s suc h a s atelephon e surve

y o f th e exampl e project s an d astud y o f th e actua l cost s an d projec t tasks . I would really lik

e to continu e pursuing thi s topi c an d sugges t tha t w e jointl y autho r apape r fo r eithe r aconferenc e or

PUF....somethin g abou t

th e coming "Ag

e Wave " i n utilit y environmental regulation . Let m e kno w wha t yo u think .

RCG/ I Ingl e r

, [Uilly , Inc .P__ TEL : Ja n 9,9 1 13=0 8 Mo.00 4 P.0 3

LIF E EXTENSIO

N OF FOSSIL POWE

R PLANT S Introductio n Thi s paper focuse s o n lif

e extension issue s relate d to fossil-fire d powe r plant s (coal , oil an

d gas ) an d whethe r thes e plant s ar e considere d ne w source s under

th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s an d PSD . Typica

l project s ar e identifie d an d correspondin g costs fo r lif e extension , wit

h an d withou t Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) ar e included . Th e issue s ar e presente d i n adiscussion forma t that i s designed to identif

y an d explai n thes e issue s in aquic

k easy-to-rea

d document . A lis t

o f reference s i s attache d wit

h source s tha

t contai n mor e detai l o n particula r topics . Th e primar

y issue s pre.sente

d include : Wh y i s lif e extensio n a

n important'environmental issue today ? Wha t i s lif e extension ? Wha t make s agoo d lif

e extensio n candidate ? Wha t i s ane w source ? Cos t estimate s o

f lif e extension project s (w/w o BACT ) Cas e Studie s o

f typica l projects : descriptio n an

d costs Wh y i s lif e extensio n a

n importan t

environmenta

l issue ? Lif e extension o

f fossil-fire d powe r plant s i s a

n important

environmenta

l issue becaus e i

t i s expecte d tha

t a s th e curren t

flee t o f fossi l powe r plant s ages , utilitie s wil

l lif e exten d thes e plant s rather

tha n replac e them . Ther e are severa l advantage s t

o lif e extension : a ) Fossil powe

r plan t technology ha s remaine d relativel y constan t fo r the pas t 2 0 years . A typica

l fossil-stea

mplant built i n th e earl y 1970' s i s ver

y simila r i n technology to aplant

built today . Thi s mean s tha

t there i s littl e technologica

l advantag e t

o building ane

w plant . b ) Th e cos t

o f lif e extensio n i s approximatel y one-quarter

th e cost o f ane w powe r plant , mainl

y becaus e o

f loose r environmenta

l requirement s an

d th e cos t o f sitin g an d improving ane

w plant location . Th e current

flee t o f fossi l plant s in the U.S . i s agin g and wil l b e reachin g thei

r usefu l lifetim e durin g th e next

2 0 years . Th e averag e expecte d lifetim e o f afossi l plan t range s fro m30-4 5 year s fo r coa l stea munit s an

d 304 0 year s fo

r oil an d ga s stea munits . Fossil unit s accounte d fo

r abou t two-third s o

f th e installe d generatin g capacit y i n th e U.S . i

n 1986 . (DOE/EIA , 1988 ) I

n 1995 , th e averag e fossi

l unit wil l b e 2 6 year s old . Mor

e tha n one quarte r o f all coal-fired plants , an

d hal f o f al l oil

- an d gas-fire d unit s wil l mor e tha n 3 0 year s ol d in 1995 . (Smock, 1987 )

KCU/llABlcr, Bnilly, Im . 2 Septembe r 1.1,199 0TE L P. 4 Ja n 9,9 1 13:0 8 No.00 4 P.0 4

Given tha t electricit y deman d i s growin

g throughou

t th e U.S . and tha

t announcement s o

f ne w powe r plant s ar e wel

l belo w th e capacit

y require d t

o mee t thi s demand afte

r 2000 , lif e extensio n appear s to b e alikel y optio n fo

r utilitie s in th e future . Regulator y treatment

o f lif e extensio n projects , especiall y ai r regulation s whic

h currently onl

y affec t ne w sources , are no t full y i n place . Thi s relatively ne

w phenomeno n o

f lif e extensio n i s outside the present regulator y domai n an d ne

w precedent s an

d guideline s stil l nee d t

o b e determined . Th e electri c utilit

y industr y argue s tha

t thi s uncertaint

y i n regulator y treatmen t

i s deterrin g the

m fro mpursuin g lif

e extensio n project s an

d unles s thi s issue i s resolved , capacit y shortage s ma

y b e arealit y early i n th e nex

t decade . Wha t i s lif e extension ? Ther e are severa

l differen t type s o f lif e extensio n projects . Th e common term s relate d t o lif e extensio n are : Lif e Extension ; (LE)

Refurbishment : Repowcring :

Phase d Lif

e Extension : Extende d Maintenance :

Front-En d LE : De-mothballing : Investment s mak e t o maintai n th e operatin g statu s o f apowe r plant a t acceptabl e level s o

f efficienc y an d availabilit

y beyon d it s originall

y anticipate d retirement

date . I n lif e extension , a plant i s usuall y restore d t

o it s origina

l performanc e withou

t installin g ne

w combustion technologies . (DOE/EIA , 1988 ) Sam e a s lif e extension . Usuall

y assumed t

o exten d th e lif e o f plan t approximatel

y 20 years , wit

h availabilit

y an d efficienc y declining ove

r time . (DOE/EIA , 1998) Th e boiler

a t auni t i s replace d wit

h ane w combustio

n technolog y suc h as a n atmospheri c fluidi2ed-be d uni t o r combined cycl

e combustion turbine . Thi s result s i n bette r performance , an

d usually , large

r capacity . (DOE/EIA , 1988 ) Lif e extensio n i s don e ove

r time , durin g norma

l maintenanc e outages . Thi s approac h i s th e on e chose n most ofte n becaus e th e utilit y ca n pla n it s L E effor t t o minimize outag e tim

e an d keep th e plant

i n service . Also , sinc e th e L E wor k i s extended ove r severa l years , the utilit

y doe s no t nee d t o hav e larg e cas h reserve s on hand . (DOE/EIA , 1988) Thi s L E approac h i s use

d b y utilitie s t

o rehabilitate plant s jus t prio r to the en

d o f thei r design lives . Thi s strateg y ma y b e appropriate i

n situation s wher

e othe r majo r change s t

o the plant ar e schedule d t

o b e installe d (fue

l conversion , emission s contro l technologies ) o

r t o restore a"moth-balled " plan t int o activ e service . I

n front-en d LE , amajo

r portio n o f th e life

RCC/lla-aglfr , D.iilt}- , Inc . Septembe r 1,1, 199 0P. 5 TE L Ja n 9,9 1 13=0 8 No.00 4 P.O !

extension wor

k i s performe d durin g asingl e planne d outage . (DOE/EIA , 1988) Wha t ar e goo d lif e extensio n candidates ? Ther e ar e severa

l dimension s tha

t autilit y mus t conside r befor e deciding to inves t

i n alif e extensio n progra

ma t aparticula

r unit . Th e issue s rang e fro

mdeman d growt

h i n th e servic e territor y t o th e conditio n o

f individua l plant components . Thes e issue s ar e presente d below i n ake y wor k format : Deman d Growt h Forecaste d deman d growt h an d electri c us e patterns . Wil l futur e demand pattern s matc

h th e dispatch capabilitie s o f th e lif e extended unit ? Syste mStatu s Age , conditio n an d operatin g characteristic s o f all plant s i

n th e system . I s i t cost-effectiv

e t o extend th e lif

e o f abas e loa

d plan t whe n there will b e ashortag e o

f pea k capacity ? Reserve Margin s Nee d fo r futur e capacit y o r supplementa

l resources . Uni t Characteristic s Uni t Conditio n Financia l Conditio n Site Constraint s

Boile r Desig n Size , age , and operatin g characteristics . About 90 % o f th e unit s tha t hav e bee n identifie d a s L E candidate s ar e 200 M W o r les s becaus e o f thei r performanc e flexibilit

y i n bein g abl e to operate as peaking/cyclin g units . Ha s th e propose d uni t

bee n constantly maintained , o r wa s refurbishmen

t intende d fo

r lif e extension ? Is . ther e cas

h o n han d fo r th e investment s required ? Woul d apha<.e d L E approac h b e appropriate ? Man y o f th e unit s suitabl e fo

r L E ar e locate d i n central busines s center s t o provide adequate loa

d suppor t fo r thes e hig h demand areas . Ther e ma y b e geographi c expansio n constraint o r even asocia

l acceptanc e threshol d tha

t limit th e extent

o f ne w equipment

tha t ca n b e adde d to th e site . Som e o f th e olde r top-fired boiler s do no t

lend themselve s wel

l t o retrofi t measure s (namely , lo

w NO x burners) . Curren t

researc h ha s focuse d on moder

n tangcntially-fired o r

horizontally-fire d boilers .

RCC/l(.icl«r , Dallly , Inc . Sc|..t-n.0« r 13 , 199 0PJ5 _ TEL : Ja n 9,9 1 13=0 8 Mo.00 4 P.0 6

Hazardou s Th e cos t t o remov e hazardou s material s suc h as asbesto s fro

munit s Material s tha

t wer e buil t whe n thi s wa

s norma l insulating practic e ca

n significantl y increas e the cost

o f aproject . Regulator y Wil

l environmenta

l control s b e require d fo

r thi s project ? Impac t I

f L E wil l increas e effluent

s fro mth e plant , d o emission s permit s nee d to b e upgraded ? Wha t i s aNe w Source ? Th e principa

l environmenta

l regulation s tha

t affec t life-extension decision s ar e Federal an d State law s tha

t contro l ai r

an d wate r qualit y an d soli d waste . Th e Federal air-qualit y regulation s ar e th e Ne

w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS) , an d th e Revise d Ne

w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (RNSPS) , an d th e Preventio n o

f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) rules . Thes e standard s limit th e emission s o

f sulfu r dioxid e ($02) , nitroge n oxide s (NOx) , an d particulat e matte r frompowe

r plants . NSP S an d RNSPS hav e specia

l importanc e i

n life-extension decision s becaus e the y impos e emissio n standard s o n generatin g unit s base d o n whe n constructio n began . Pre-NSP S unit s (thos e whos e constructio n bega n befor e August 18 , 1977 ) ar e subjec

t onl y t o State Implementatio n Plans , whic h ar e generally les s stringent than NSPS . NSP

S and RNSPS unit s mus t

no t emit more than 1.

2 pound s o

f S0 2 pe r million Bt

u o f hea t input . In additio n to th e 1.

2 lb/mmBt

u limit , RNSP

S unit s must

reduc e thei r

S0 2 emission s b

y 70

- 90 % (dependin g upo n emission s rate ) whic h usuall y require s th e us e o

f flue ga s desulfurizatto n (FGD ) equipment . Man y o f th e plant s tha t

wil l b e considere d fo

r L E in th e nea

r futur e wil l b e pre-NSP S plants . I f utilitie s ca

n preserv e th e pre-NSP S statu s o f thes e plants , the

y wil l b e abl e to avoid th e capita

l an d maintenanc e cost s o

f FG D equipment . I

n thes e cases , RNSP

S als o applie s t o an

y existing unit s when refurbishmen t make s them"new" , "modified " o r

. "reconstructed " facilities . Th e interpretatio n o

f "ne w source " fo

r RNSP S applicatio n ha s recentl

y shifted . Originally , i t wa s assume d tha

t an y L E projec t whos e capita

l costs exceede d 5 0 percent o f ane w boiler uni t would b e considere d ne

w sources . Unti l recently , however , EP A did no t enforc e thi s criteria . But , an effor

t t o improv e th e new-sourc e review proces s ha s shifte d EPA' s stance . I n th e fal l o f 1988 , Wisconsi

n Electri c Powe

r Co . (WEPCO ) propose d t o renovat e the fiv e unit s a t thei r 40-year-old Por

t Washington plant

t o restor e degraded output t o desig n capacit y and t o exten d thei r operatin g life . Th e federa l EP A rule d tha

t thi s projec t

woul d caus e Por t Washington t

o becom e affecte d b y RNSP S an d emission s contro l measure s woul d hav e to b e installe d a

t th e plant . Th e basi s fo

r thi s rulin g wa

s no t o n th e 50 % capita

l costs becaus e th e propose d $8 0 millio n capita l investmen

t wa s well below hal

f o f th e cost o f ne w RCC/UflBlcr,nnil.y,I„c . 5 Sep.en.be r 1.1 . 199 0_7_ TEL : Ja n 9,9 1 1 3 = 0 8 No.00 4 P.0 7

boilers . EP A based , thi s rulin g o n th e plant' s capacit y to emi t pollutants . I

f L E increase s th e plant' s capabilit

y to emit compare d t

o th e baselin e perio d - - usuall y th e tw o year s prio r t o th e L E progra m- then th e ne

w sourc e regulation s would b e triggered . Afte r acour t battle , EP A an d WEPC O reache d a

n agreement

that onl y partia l S0 2 remova

l wa s require d at

tw o o f th e five units . Thi s agreemen t was base d o n ates t

tha t prove d tw

o o f th e five unit s wer

e capabl e o

f operatin g at

their ful l capacit y eve n thoug h thes e unit s wer e no t actually dispatche d durin g th e baselin e perio d fo r economi c dispatch reasons . Therefore , th e propose d L E progra mwoul d no t increas e thes e unit s abilit y t o emi t pollutants . O

f th e remainin g thre e units , one wa s eliminate d fro

mth e L E progra mbecaus e extensiv e repair s woul

d b e require d t o restore i t

t o operation , and th e other tw o unit s wil l b e require d t o reduc e S0 2 emission s approximatel y 1 0 t o 20 percent . PS D standard s mus t als o b e met

by upgradin g th e precipitator s a t th e plants . PS D applie s t o the plan t

as a whole rathe r

than individua

l units , s o all fou

r refurbishe d unit s ar c affected . Unde r th e basi s o

f th e curren t

interpretatio n o

f ne w source , utilitie s are motivate d t o continu e t o operat e unit s designate d fo r LE , s o tha

t the y ca n prov e th e unit s abilit

y t o emi t ha s no t increased . Othe r

L E program s hav e bee n recentl y cite d b y EP A a s ne w sources . Thes e project s include Detroi t Edison' s projec t

t o add ne w burner s t

o allo w a n oil-fired plant to burn gas . Increase d operatin g hour s du e t o th e economi c advantag e o f ga s fue l wil l result i n increase d emission s o

f NOx . Anothe

r affecte d L E projec t

coul d b e aClea

n Coa l Technology progra

mprojec t involvin g ane w typ e o f FG D syste

mtha t wil l als o increas e th e capacit y facto r o f aNorther

n Indian aPubli c Servic e Compan y plant . Th e increase d utilizatio n o

f thi s plant

i s expecte d t

o increas e NO

x emission s triggering ane w sourc e review . Thi s projec t

ma y b e excepte d fro

mne w sourc e standard s becaus e i t i s primarily a pollutio n contro l project . Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n ' Th e wid e variet y o f L E project s (phased , front-end , repowering ) have differen t total costs . Phase d project s hav e lo

w annua l capital investments , bu t

thes e investment s stretc h ove r severa l years . Front-en d an

d repowerin g project s have larg e initia l capita l investments . Th e differenc e i n cash flo

w o f thes e project s require s tha t they b e compared o

n alevelizc d annua l cos t basis . Thi s basi s ma

y __\ b e th e bes t

indicator , however , o

f triggering ne

w sourc e reviews . Th e actua

l L E projec t

tasks ma y sho w th e extent

o f "modification " and th e correspondin g increas e i n S0 2 o r NO x emission s bette r

tha n cos t alone . Th e BAC T requirement s fo r arefurbishe d plant

ca n b e me t wit h avariet y o f contro l technologies . Fo r

sulfu r dioxid e complianc e awe t

o r dr y scrubbe r ca n b e added , Limestone/Calciu mInjectio n - Multi-stag e Burning (LIMB ) Technology ca n b e use d o r

a th e plant ca n switc h t o low-sulfu

r coa l an d ad d on e o f thes e technologies . For

NO x reductio n th e combustio n technology ca n b e modifie

d wit h lo w NO x burner s o

r Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (SCR

) technology ca

n b e added . I

n additio n t o thes e modification , th e RCG/I(n 6 ttr , Dull.; , loe . , 6 Sep.cml.c r 1.1 , 199 0TE L P. 8 Ja n 9,9 1 13=0 8 N

o .00 4 P.0 8

particulat e control

^ syste mma y nee d t o b e upgrade d whic h usuall y require s modification s or replacement

o f th e Electrostati c Precipitato r (ESP) . Th e additio n o

f S0 2 contro l o

r coal

switchin g wil l usuall y chang e th e compositio n an d resistivit y o f th e flue gase s s o tha

t particulat e control s wil

l b e affected . Cost estimate s fo

r retrofit contro l technologie s var

y greatly wit

h th e project . Critica

l parameter s include retrofi t difficult y (i s there spac e fo

r ascrubber

o n site?) , solid wast

e remova l an d storag e capabilities , boile r typ e (som

e boiler s d o no t

len d themselve s to lo

w NO x burners) , an

d existin g contro l syste

msiz e an d condition . Increase d operatin g an d maintenanc e costs du e to th e additional pollutio n contro l equipment , wast e removal , an

d plant availabilit y could ad d 1 to 3 mils/kw h t

o th e energy cost . Without pollutio n contro l equipment , th e energy cos t would probabl y b e reduce d becaus e o f improved hea

t rat e and lowe r maintenanc e costs . Replacement catalys t fo r SC R system s i s relatively expensive an d i s ofte n capitalize d i

n th e initia

l cos t estimates . Most

retro-fi t pollutio n contro l project s i n th e U.S . hav e bee n fo

r unit s large r

tha n 20 0 MW , s o i t i s no t clea r wha t contro l technologie s utilitie s wil

l us e on th e smaller , olde r

unit s tha t would b e life-extended . Th e attache d cost table s show bot

h cost s and projec t

task s fo r severa l differen t type s o f lif e extensio n project s an d th e correspondin g BAC

T technologies . Table s 1-

3 sho w typica l projec t tasks and costs fo r th e thre e majo

r type s o f L E projects : Phased , Front-en d an d Repowering . Tabl e 4 show s acos t compariso n o

f thes e project s an d severa

l actua l L E projects . Th e cost s o

f L E withou

t adding pollutio n control s ar e generally : Projec t Tvp e Phase d L E Front-En d L E Coal-fire d Oil-fire d Gas-fire d Repowerin g NGC C AFB C IGC C JWO/k w

15 0 - 25 0 27 0 13 0

- 8 5 500-105 0 90 0 160 0 Fo r retrofi t pollutio n control s add : Contro l Tvp e We t FG D Dr y FG D Particulate Upgrad e Lo w NO x Burner s SC R

RCC/Huglcr , Dflilly , Inc . $1990/k w $170-40 0 $100-30 0 $ 50-20 0 $ 7-1 2 $ 65-15 0

Septembe r 1.1,199 0p__ TEL : Ja n 9,9 1 1 3 = 0 8 No.00 4 P.0 9

W>_?Z£_ ^x b0ttt * ndl£ ° l

20( L M W c ? a ,

- flr

. e dTM < tha t i s require d , o ad

d o r about $380/kw . r . r?r<\-s *—«&»">

i » «wiu-cu

u i^ o u i tvv IVIV

Y coai-nre auni

t ma t i s req u ^h^P««n/[f W N ° X bumer S ran * e s fro m$7 6 t 0 % milIio n dollar s capita l investmen

t Conclusion f^ mu^Ti tHe ! ! preliniina, y cos t estimates , i t

appear s tha

t L E cost s fo

r goo d candidate s i s stil l wel l belo w th e curren t

cost s fo r ne w powe r plant s o f $1650/k w fo r coa l and $800/k

w fo r natura l ga s combined-cycle . Th e highe r cost s fo r ne w plant s ar e no t

fo r equipment

and engineering , bu t

rather , fo r site improvements , permitting , and transmissio n cost s

RCO/HagW , Bailly , Inc . o O Sep«iiili< T 1.1 , 199 0P.1 0 TEL : Ja n 9,9 1 1 3 = 0 8 No.00 4 P.1 0

Tabl e 1 Phase d Lif

e Extension Example Description . Phase d lif

e extension i s usuall

y amulti-yea

r investmen

t t o inspec t an d replac e majo r equipmen t component s a

t a20-3 0 powe

r plant . Tii e advantage s t

o thi s L E approach i s th e lo

w capita l investmen

t require d eac h yea

r and th e continue d availabilit

y o f auni t during th e L E program . Assumptions : Th e projec t i s assumed t

o requir e fou r year s fo r "completion . Th e L E enhancement s ar e performe d durin g thre e unit

outages . Thes e outage s ar e schedule d fo r Mont h 1-3 , Mont

h 21-24 , an d Mont h 42-45 . Th e phase d lif

e extensio n progra

mi s projecte d to extend th e generatin g uni t lif e b y twent y years . Th e investmen

t i n L E wil l b e i n th e area s o

f critica l equipment

an d non-critica

l or redundan t systems equipmen

t tha t could hav e asignifican

t impac t o n th e uni t

efficienc y o r availability . Th e phas e L

E progra massume s tha

t non-critica

l equipment

hav e been th e recipien t o f aqualit y routine maintenanc e program . I n addition , th e maintenanc e o f non critica l system s wil l continue a s afunction o

f thi s program . Th e cos t estimat e fo r th e phased L

E progra massume s a6 % escalatio n rat e fo r labor an d materials . Indirec t

cost s are assumed t o b e 16 % o f direc t costs . Tb e orde r o f th e phase d progra mis : Uv..*ay v " OiatS ^ 2 Ov>t2£e 3 Os * Estimate s E£f£ 2 &^£- i T;^co>Generato r Gx»3«s^ s Syste

m Iks : Rqeoio n Sys

t Mont h 1- 3 Mont h 21-24 Mont h 42-4 5

t

e m CtV K TtL-t?m e Equipmen t S^Sssga r lr5cr-TKrj:ition/Co i ntro l - Turbin e Turbin e Upgrad e Boile r Enhancement s Non-critica l an d Redundan t System s

rota l $1990/kw 54.1 0 2.4 9 0.9 3 0.7 0 5.6 1 0.0 7 63.9 0

5CiJWfcv3aai>.Uc . Septembe r 1.1 , 199 UP.1 1 TEL : Ja n 9,9 1 1 3 = 0 8 No.00 4 P.1 1

Outag e 2 Fossi l Stea mSuppl y Syste m Instrumentatio n an

d Control s Draf t Syste m Fccdwate r Heatin g Syste

m Tota l Outag e 3 Stac k Structur e Protectiv e Equipment Powe r an d Contro l Wiring Air , Wate r an d Stea mSystem s Wastewate r Treatmen t

Equipment •

82.8 9 6.1 3 22.3 1 0.7 9 112.1 2 0.2 2 0.0 9 0.3 7 0.7 0 ~ 0.2 1 Make-u p Wate r Structure & Equipment

0.1 3 Total Direc t Cost/k w Indirec t Cost/k w TOTA L Cost/k w Pollutio n Contro l Dr y FG D Lo w NO x Burner s Particulat e Syste mUpgrad e 1.7 2 177.7 4 28.7 6 206.5 0 $100-20

0 $ 10-1 5 $50-20 0 TOTA L wit h Pollutio n Contro l $366-62 1 Example Projects : 1 ) Potoma

c Electri c Powe

r Co . - Potomac Rive

r plan t $8 8 millio n ove

r 1 0 year s fo

r 5 unit s totalin g 51 4 MW .

RCC/lla-ekr , Dailty, Inc . ' 1 0 Sfpli-mbc r 1.1 . 199 0TE L P.1 2 Ja n 9,9 1 13=0 8 No.00 4 P.1 .

Tabl e 2 Fron t End Lif e Extensio n Exampl e Description : One-time rehabilitatio n o f aunit or plan t t o increas e availabilit

y o r retur n the uni t t o "active " servic e afte

r being "mothballed" . Usuall y majo r wor k i s complete d durin g asingl e outag e and capita l investment . Assumption s an d Note s Front-en d L

E o r refurbishmen

t candidate s ar e assumed to b e unit s tha t ar e i n abov e averag e conditio n an

d wil l requir e arelativel

y lo w leve l o f effor t t o increas e uni t

availabilit y an d operatin g efficiency . Candidate s fo r refurbishmen

t ar e unit s tha

t hav e bee n operate d wit h ahig h qualit y Routin e Maintenanc e Progra m(RMP) . I n addition , thes e unit s hav e not bee n subjected t o abusive operatin g practice s suc h a s ovcrfiring , operatio n without feedwate r heaters , significan

t water chemistr y imbalance , infrequen

t boiler an d condensatio n syste

m cleanings . Non-critica

l equipment

i s define d a s machiner

y tha t ca n b e repaire d unde r

th e RMP o r equipment that ca n b e repaire d durin g reduce d loa d period s (nights , holidays , and weekends) . A significan

t segmen t o f th e non-critica

l equipment

wil l consis t o f machiner y wit h redundant

system s i n plac e a s part

o f th e origina

l facilit y desig n suc

h a s feedwate

r pumps , condensat

e pumps , an d compresse d ai r systems . I t

i s assumed tha

t non-critica

l equipment wil l b e overhaule d o r

replace d ove

r th e remainin g lif

e o f the uni t as par t o f th e RMP . Instrument

an d contro l systems wil

l b e upgrade d t

o enhanc e boiler/turbine/gencrato r respons e an

d subsequen

t abilit y o f th e unit to respon d to loa

d chang e requirement s including cyclin

g an d peakin g operation . Th e contro l syste mupgrade wil

l us e existin

g fina l driv e component s a s applicabl e and integrate digita l contro l technology int o replacements . Variabl e spee d drive s and sliding pressure contro l ar e als o integrate d int o th e uni t t o reduc e powe r consumptio n an

d th e impac t

o f cycling/peakin g operatio n o n th e unit . Cos t Estimate s Projec t $1990/k w Coal-fired Uni t Stac k Structur e 0.1 8 Fossi l Stea mSuppl y 44.7 1 Draf t Syste m12.1 5 Instrumentatio n and Control s 3.0 1 Turbin e Generato r

33.1 0 RCO/|ln e i*r , B.iilly , Inc . 1 1 Svp.cml.c r 1.1 , 199 0P.1 3 TEL : Ja n 9,9 1 13=0 8 No.00 4 P.1 3

Condensin g Syste

m2.5 1 Fee d Heatin g Syste

m3.54 Turbin e Plan t

Equipmen

t (other ) 4.6

9 Proces s Control s 0.0 5 Mak e Water Structure s & Equip . 0.6

9 Heat Rejectio n Syste

m5,5 3 Direc t Cost/k w 110.1 6 Indirec t Cost/k w 17.82 TOTA L Cost/k

w 127.9 8 Pollutio n Contro l Dr y FG D $100-20 0 Lo w NO x Burner s $ 10-1 5 Particulate Syste

mUpgrade $ 50-20

0 TOTAL wit

h Pollutio n Contro l $288-543 Exampl e Projects : 1 ) Cincinnat

i Ga s & Electri c - Beckjor

d Uni t 3 (1987 ) $1 3 millio n a

t 12 5 M W unit , $121/kw . 2 ) Wisconsi

n Electri c Powe

r Compan y - Por t Washington Estimate d a

t $8 8 million fo

r 4-80 M W unit s Estimate d a

t $3 2 million fo

r pollutio n contro l

RCC/Haglfr , D..il!y , Inc . 1 2 Stpirmlto r I) , 199 0P.1 4 TE L Ja n 9,9 1 13:0 8 No.00 4 P.1 4

Tabl e 3 Repowerin g Exampl e Description : A lif

e extensio n projec t

in whic h th e steamgeneratin g uni t (boiler ) i s replace d o r augmente d b

y ane w technology eithe r

natura l ga s combine d cycl

e technology (NGCC) , atmospheri c fluidized be d combustion (AFBC) , o r other clea n coa l technology suc

h a s integrate d gasifie

d combine d cycl

e (IGCC) . Repowering usuall

y increase s th e availabl e capacit y a t th e unit . Majo r Modification s Mos

t majo r plan t component s ar e replace d o r upgrade d Turbin e generato r

refurbishmen

t Thes e project s ar e generall

y considere d ne

w source s becau.s e th e boile r i s replaced . Cos t Estimate s Projec t NGC C AFB C IGC C Pollutio n Contro l Stea mInjectio n SC R w/ o catalys t $1990/k w $550-105 0 $90 0 $160 0 $ 5 $65-15 0 Example Projects : 1 ) Lon g Islan d Lightin g Co . - Por

t Jefferson NGC C • $625-105O/k

w 2 ) Sa n Dieg o Ga s and Electri c - Sout h Ba y Uni t 3 NCGG - $500/k

w

RCO/IIa-clcr , Ballly , Inc . 1 3 S«|.KmlK. T 1.1 , 190 0P.1 5 Ja n 9,9 1 13:0 8 No.00 4 P.1 5 j ILL - .-~ 4

Reference s Baylor , Jill , "Aci

d Rai n Lnpact s o n Utilit

y Plan s fo

r Lif e Extension" , Publi c Utilitie s Fortnightly , March 1 , 1990, pgs . 22-28 . Catalano , Lee , "Evaluat

e non-technica

l barrier s to life-extension programs" , JPower , December , 1984 , pgs . 67-70 . Democker , James , Judit

h Greenwald , Paul Schwengels , "Extende d Lifetime s fo r Coal-fire d Powe r Plants : Effects Upo n Ai

r Quality" , Publi c Utilitie s Fortnightly . Marc h 20 , 1986 , pgs . 30-37 . DOE/EIA-0509 , Estimatin g th e Capita l Costs o f T.if c Extension fo

r Fossil-fire d Srea m Plants . July 1988 . Smock , Robert , Towe r

plant owner s 'phas e in ' lif

e extension" , Powe

r Engineering . February , 1987 . pgs . 18-23 . "Competition raise s th e value o f lif e extension , agin

g plant upgrading" , Powe

r Engineering . February , 1988 . pg s 24-29 . "Powe r plan t lif e extensio n tren d take s ne

w directions" , Powe

r Engineering . February , 1989 . pgs . 21-27 . "I s lif e extension dead?" , Powe

r Engineering . September , 1989 , pgs . 78-79 . "Lif e Extensio n run s int

o environmenta

l barriers" , Powe

r Engineering . February , 1990. , pgs . 19-24 . "Repowerin

g old plant s gain s favor" , Powe r Engineering . May , 1990, pgs . 25

- 27 .

RCG/IlnfiW , Bailly , Inc . 1 4 Septembe r M , 199 0

;.'•.:••* » 

## &mTEL : P.1 6 Ja n 9.9 1 13:0 8 No.00 4 P.1 6

Tabl e 4 Typica l Lif e Extensio n Cos t Range s
Study/Prolec

t DOE/EI A Concep

t 5 Mode l Uni t w/

o FG O Mode l Uni t w/

o FGO ' Mode l uni t w/FG D Mode l Uni t w/FGD * CEC/Stone & Webste r Mode l Uni t w/

o FG D Mode l uni t w/FG D DO E Repor

t t o 1987 America n Coal-fire d Unit s Oil-fire d Unit s Gas-fire d Unit s Uni t Siz e >200M W <20OM W >200M W <200M W n/ a n/ a Powo rConferenc e (Al l Cost s S t 990/kw

) L E Cos t FG D Cost 18 8 28 2 20 7 445 100-25 0 250-55 0 270 13 1 84 0

0 0 0 NO x Cos i

0 0 0 0

199 0 EPRIS0 2 Contro

l Symposiu

m FG D Syste m - retro-fi

t Lo w NO x Burners Tangentia l 8oilo rRetrofit * * Selectiv e Catalyti c Reductio n (European ) 17 0 6 5 1.5-3. 0 millio n Phase d Lif e Extensio n PEPC O - Potoma c Rive rPlan t CG& E - Beckjor

d Plan t Uni t 1 Uni t 2 Fron t En d Lif e Extensio n WGPC O - Pt . Washingto n 1 - 4 CG& E Beckjor

d Uni t 3 50 0 11 5 11 2 32 0 125 17

6 20 3 18 7 25 0 127 0

0 0 10 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

' Wit h FG D refers t o lif e extensio n wor

k o n a n existin g syste m * * Thi s capita

l investmen ti s no

texpecte d t o var

y greatl y wit h siz e o f uni t 

### •ii

^ •V.T-ai . •}..iiW.-:SP 2$*