p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

223) 11-1-3 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:02 AM Sheet 223 of 276 
P.2 

.. .'* 

W. C. BECKJORD STATION-UNIT 3 

THE FIRST FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF 

LIFE EXTENSION RECOMMENDATIONS 

Barry E. Pulskamp ^.Aw 

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company 

r€i3- V 3 

A ' ^ X 

ABSTRACT 

A great many utilities across the country have included Life Extension as an 

integral part of their generation expansion plans. Life Extension has 

temporarily replaced new construction. Most of these utilities have adopted a 

"phased" approach to Life Extension of candidate units. The Cincinnati Gas & 

Electric Company's W. C. Beckjord Station-Unit 3 is the first generating unit 

in the country to complete a "full" instead of "phased" life extension 

program. During a thirteen week outage which ended in January, 1986, all life 

extension modifications recommended as a result of extensive studies were 

implemented. A total of forty-nine replacement and/or modification projects 

were performed to add approximately 25 years to the unit's life at a total 

cost of less than SlOO/kW. The planning, coordination and project management 

utilized to inspect and evaluate the condition of the unit, procure materials, 

equipment, and contractors and complete the installation and startup are 

discussed in detail. 

BACKGROUND 

*•". C. Beckjord Station is located or. the Ohio River near New Richmond, Ohio, 

approximately 17 miles upstream from Cincinnati, Ohio. Unit 3 has a rated 

capacity of 128 MW and was placed into service in 1954. The unit consists of 

_.&.* front fired single reheat pulverized coal boiler and a General Electric 

tander. compound two flow turbine. Steam conditions are 1800 psig/1000 deg. 

F/1000 deg. F. 

The unit was conservatively designed, well-built, and has been wellmaintained. Its heat rates and availability have been favorable. An analysis 

of CGkE's generation expansion plan identified Unit 3 as the prime candidate 

for life extension. 

STUDIES 

For thirty years, the plant operators, maintenance and other support personnel1 

have worked with the unit. They know it well; they know its limitations and 

its strong points. They have a good idea of what equipment is or is not 

suitable for another twenty-five years. This knowledge is a valuable source 

of ir.forr.ation. In our studies, it vas used tc build the foundation for our 

il 
P.3 

detailed investigations. It allowed us to focus our resources on specific 

areas. 

Our preliminary studies had estimated a cost of S89/ki. to extend the life cf 

Unit 3. 

One of the most questionable areas in the determination of remaining life is 

turbine-generators, especially rotors and shells. We realized that this 

equipment is highly engineered and that much of the information required to 

properly evaluate this equipment is proprietary by the manufacturer, General 

Electric. In the case of Unit 3, General Electric had been involved in every 

turbine overhaul since the initial startup. For these reasons, GE was 

contracted to perform a life extension evaluation of the turbine-generator 

equipment. This study was initiated in September of 1983, and completed in 

February, 1984. 

The GE study of the turbine-generator supported our original estimate. 

Management approval was obtained in June, 1984, to proceed with life 

extension. A thirteen week outage was scheduled for the fall of 1985. 

A team was assembled to investigate the remaining areas of the unit. 

Organization of the study team is shown in Figure 1. The Boiler Plant study 

was conducted by our in-house engineering personnel with assistance in the 

evaluation of high temperature components from Babcock & Wilcox. Electrical 

equipment and structures were also evaluated by in-house personnel. Bechtel 

Associates was contracted to perform the life extension evaluations of balance 

of plant equipment. Bechtel was responsible for basically all other equipment 

not supplied by either the original boiler or turbine contracts. 

These studies were formally kicked off in July, 1984, and were completed in 

February, 1985, as scheduled. This demanding schedule was complicated by the 

need to conduct the inspection during a two-week period. This required 

special considerations and careful planning. The inspection work was 

carefully staged and scheduled so that the unit could be returned to service 

within 24 hours notice if required for load. 

SCOPE OF WORK 

As a result of the study, 49 capital improvement projects were identified for 

the life extension outage. CG&E defines capital projects in accordance with 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission guidelines. A list of these 

refurbishment projects is provided in Table I. 

A MAJOR PROJECT WITH A MINOR SCHEDULE 

At the time of our inspections, the outage to implement the recommendations of 

those inspections wa. less than one year away. Action had to be taken to 

expedite procurement of long lead time items. Our requirements for obtaining 

competitive pricing could not be compromised and, before we couid proceed with 

any purchase, our evaluation and ccst justification for the replacement or 

modification had to be approved. 

It was obvious, that in order to maintain our commitment to the outage 

schedule, we must utilize some of the project controls normally reserved for 

major, new construction projects. 
P.4 

WCB-3 

Life Extension Capital Work 

Turbine Related 

Bucket Replacement (5 row?) 

Steam Seal Conversion 

KP Inner Shell Replacement 

Static Exciter 

Stop Valve Bypass Valve Installation 

Generator Field Rewind 

Generator Stator Rewind 

Starting & Loading Thermocouples 

Misc. Control Improvements 

Condenser Retubing 

Fine Mesh Screens 

Boiler Related 

Bunker Replacement 

ID Fan Drive Replacement 

Demineralizer Replacement 

Combustion Controls 

Service Water Piping Replacement 

Water Sampling Room 

Annunciator Replacement 

Boiler Skin Casing 

Insulation Replacement 

Ignitor Replacement 

Feeder Motor Replacement 

'Secondary Air Dampers 

Primary Air Fan Replacement 

Sootblowers Replacement 

Secondary Superheater 

High Temp. Headers (3) 

Primary Reheater 

Secondary Reheater 

Uninterruptible Power Supply 

Misc. Control and Panel Equipment 

Total Project cost approximately 513,000,000, including all engineering, 

overheads, and allowance for funds. 

Table I 

io 
P.5 

We had recently acquired the PREMIS critical path method scheduling program. 

In the past, on major projects, our scheduling work had always been handled by 

outside consultants. As soon as we were able to identify a potential 

replacement or modification for the outage, action was taken to input the 

schedule into the PREMIS program. Our primary concerns at this point were to: 

1. Order and receive all materials and equipment prior to the 

first day of the outage, and 

2. Complete all engineering and drafting in time to allow for 

obtaining competitive bids, and 

3. Award installation contracts in time to allow contractors to 

prepare detailed installation schedules. 

On this project, our plans were to complete all engineering in-house for 

capital projects. Many of our engineering personnel were unfamiliar with the 

PREMIS program. To expedite the input of information, standard forms were 

prepared that listed the normal steps in the engineering-procurement-drafting 

process in our company. The engineer simply had to fill in the estimated time 

to complete each step in the process and/or fix the date when the step had to 

be complete. These forms greatly simplified the schedule formation process. 

Once the PREMIS schedules were input, the critical paths were identified and 

we were able to concentrate our efforts on those items in trouble. 

CONTRACTORS 

It has been our experience that the fewer contractors on the jobsite, the 

easier it is to control the project. Limiting the contractors also limits the 

"finger-pointing" and simplifies coordination. For this project, installation 

contractors were chosen for the following work packages: 

Turbine-Generator 

Boiler 

Electrical 

Piping 

Condenser 

Asbestos Removal 

Insulation 

Besides the capital work involved in the life extension project, there was a 

large amount of maintenance work identified by the plant that had to be 

included in the work packages. This required a close working relationship 

between engineering and plant personnel related to the outage. 

The turbine-generator installation contract was awarded to General Electric. 

Much of this work, especially service shop work, was awarded on a firm price 

basis. Late in the outage, problems were found with the stator windings in 

the generator. National Electric Coil was contracted to manufacture and 

inst.-.il the new stator windings without impacting the outage schedule. 

Competitive bids were obtained for the boiler work. Babcock & Wilcox was 

successful. This scope of work was by far the most extensive of the project. 

B-.'-.' was also successful supplier of all of the boiler material being installed 

in this work package. This offered a great advantage since we were able to 

negotiate a single source responsibility frcm 3&W for both materials and 

inst_Ll laticn. 

40 
P.6 

This project involved the removal of asbestos bearing insulation from the 

entire boiler, (over 15,000 sq. ft.). Both the removal and the replacement 

were performed on firm price, competitive bid contracts. R. E. Kramig Co. of 

Cincinnati, Ohio performed the removal. Powerhouse Equipment of Akron, Ohio 

performed the replacement. 

All electrical work was assembled into a package and awarded to a local 

contractor, Watson-Flagg. Likewise, all piping work (except for boiler 

related) was assembled in a package and awarded by competitive bid to a local 

piping contractor, Mechanicals, Inc'. 

The condenser retubing and installation of ID fan drives (both in secluded 

areas of the plant) were bid separately and awarded to a local contractor, 

Enerfab. 

Each of the installation contractors were required to provide detailed 

schedules within several weeks of award. These bar charts were required to 

include each step of the installation process and men per shift per day for 

each of these steps. This data became the basis for the project outage 

schedule. 

Prior tc award of the installation contracts on this project, our management 

negotiated an agreement with the National Maintenance Policy Committee for 

craft labor of signatory unions to work at 90 percent of full scale wages. 

This resulted in a considerable savings in installation cost for this project. 

THE OUTAGE TEAM 

As with any major project, a field engineering staff is necessary to supervise 

construction and administer the contractors. When our last new unit was 

completed, our normal field construction staff was reassigned. A new team 

with special characteristics had to be assembled for this project. These 

special characteristics for the Outage Team were: 

1. A clear understanding of existing plant operations and good 

working relationships with plant personnel. 

2. A familiarization with the modifications and equipment to be 

installed. The outage length did not' allow time for someone 

to be trained. 

3. The tenacity necessary to effectively manage contractor 

personnel. 

4. A willingness to devote long hours to the project. 

Fulfilling these objectives required a mix of engineering and plant personnel. 

Our General Engineering and Electric Production Departments each contributed 

individuals to the Outage Team. Temporary reassignments were made. The 

Outage Coordinator was brought in from another generating plant, thereby 

allowing for his undivided attention to the project. The organization is 

shown in Figure 2. The Outage Coordinator was directly responsible for the 

outage work. His tear, of Field Engineers were the single source contacts for 

the contractors. It was the responsibility of the Life Extension Project 

Leader to procure equipment and contractors. It was the Outage Coordinator's 

resDonsibilitv to see that the contracts are carried out. 
P.7 

The Outage Team was located in a room off the Turbine Room fittingly called 

"Outage Central". An outage board 35 foot long by 8 feet high (see Figure 3) 

displayed all schedules for boiler and balance of plant equipment 

installations. A smaller board on the opposite wall displayed turbine work. 

These boards were the focal point of daily contractor meetings. Each morning 

at 8:30AM all contractor representatives grouped to discuss progress from the 

proceeding day and activities to take place that day. If activities scheduled 

for the previous day were not completed as scheduled, they were moved back and 

their impact on other operations and the overall schedule could be assessed 

immediately. These meetings could be intimidating and were an effective tool. 

The discussion of daily activity by each contractor was very effective in 

minimizing lack of coordination problems. The contractors were also 

responsible for reporting their manpower levels at these meetings. 

THE OUTAGE 

The outage was scheduled for October 25, 1985 thru January 25, 1986. The 

first 15 days of the outage were used exclusively for asbestos insulation 

removal. The entire boiler area from ash hopper to penthouse was enclosed 

with plastic sheeting and placed under a negative pressure. The insulation 

removal contractor worked three 8-hour shifts per day for these 15 days and 

completed all work as scheduled. Eighty large dumpsters of material was 

removed. During this work, we maintained field engineers at the site around 

the clock to ensure the work remained on schedule and was completed in 

accordance with applicable safety regulations. 

During these 15 days, the Boiler Room of the unit was closed off to all other 

personnel. As a result; other contractors, such as the boiler and piping 

contractors, could not begin work until November 11, 1985. 

The outage went well. Jobs initially considered crucial and close to 

impossible, such as the boiler skin casing, went very well. All contractors, 

with the exception of the turbine contractor, were originally scheduled for 

one or two 8-hour shifts. The turbine work was done on two 10-hour shifts. 

It was only during the last week of the outage that limited overtime became 

necessary. 

Three occurrences took place during the outage which had great potential for 

upsetting the schedule. Each occurrence was dealt with accordingly and 

adjustments made to compensate. As a result, the scheduled completion date 

remained unaffected. These occurrences are described below. 

1. As mentioned earlier, the stator rewind was found to be in 

need of rewinding. Coils were manufactured, installed and 

tested within 8 weeks of award. 

2. The main steam and hot reheat lines were found to be severely 

exfoliated. Within 10 days of a decision to acid clean this 

piping, the cleaning system connections were fabricated and 

installed, the cleaning completed, and the temporary 

connections were removed. Total cost of this work was 

slightly over 5100,000. The turbine and boiler contractors 

were slightly delayed, however, a weekend of overtime brought 

them back on schedule. 

3. Difficulties in electrical testing and delays in release for 

testing. Adjustments were made in testing responsibilities, 

work hours and overtime to compensate. 

42 
P.8 

The outage was completed on schedule. On January 25, 1986, at 9:37AM the 

generator relay was closed. On January 27, 1986, a cold spell hit the 

Cincinnati area and the unit was used to produce over 100 MW's (75 percent of 

full load) to meet the system demands. 

Generator vibration at the first critical was unacceptable. After several 

balance attempts, the rewound field was removed and balanced at low speed on 

site. Mid plane balance was required to reduce vibration. This field 

removal, balance, and replacement work took one week after the unit was 

finally removed from service. 

COMPANY LABOR EFFORT 

CG&E labor efforts were monitored throughout the entire project from study 

thru the full implementation of life extension recommendations. All but one 

of the jobs in this project were engineered by in-house engineering personnel. 

All field engineering, drafting, and electrical testing was completed by our 

company personnel. A summary of the hours is shown in Table II below: 

Table II 

Summary of Company Labor 

WCB-3 Life Extension 

Description Manhours 

Engineering (study only) 5,900 

Engineering of Modifications (incl. field eng'rg.) 13,800 

Drafting 8,200 

Scheduling 1,100 

Electrical Testing 8,400 

Plant Support 1,600 

Total 39,000 

Figure 4 compares monthly manpower requirements to major events in the 

schedule. 

CONCLUSION 

Our work is complete on Unit 3. All modifications required for life extension 

have been implemented. We can walk away from the unit with reasonable 

assurance of its operating reliably thru the extended life period. 

The outage was a great success. It was completed on time and within budget, 

and at a cost of less than $100/kW. We've learned from our experience and are 

implementing changes now for our next outage on WCB-2 in October, 1986. This 

will be another full implementation of life extension recommendations. 

The PREMIS program will be used to schedule not only the engineering and 

procurement, but the actual outage work itself. Through careful planning for 

completion of each item prior tc contractor bidding, we hope to greatly reduce 

our electrical testing and contractor overtime. 

Work scopes are being detailed far in advance of the outage to minimize extra 

work. We are capitalizing or. our experience to reduce our engineering and 

drafting efforts. Major scope changes such as the rewind of the generator 

stator and acid cleaning of the main steam and hot reheat line are being 
P.9 

planned. Our field engineering personnel will be better supported with 

assistance to provide better cost control and cost reporting. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Presentation of this paper is not complete without acknowledgement to the 

hundreds of individuals who made this life extension project a success. 

Everyone involved; the engineers, draftsmen, craft labor, technicians, clerks 

and typists played an important role in the final outcome. Special 

recognition is given to the Outage Team, whose unselfish dedication to the 

project made the pieces all come together. 

REFERENCES 

Pulskamp, B.E., "Life Extension of W. C. Beckord Station - Units 1, 2 & 3", 

Electric Power Research Institute Fossil Plant Life Extension Workshop, June, 

1984 

44 
P.10 

W.C. 9ECKJ0RD - UNIT 3 

LIFE EXTENSION 

STUDY TEAM 

TURBINE-GENERATOR j 

SPONSOR 

GENERAL ELECTRIC 1 

! 

j BOILER 

SPONSOR 

BABCOCK ti WILCOX | 

PROJECT LEADER 

BALANCE Of PLANT 

SPONSOR 

. 

BECHTEL 

RECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 

SPONSOR 

STRUCTURES ANB 

ARCHITECTURE 

SPONSOR 

FIGURE 

45 

ww_|M, . ,."J*J_-.- "HSWPSP 
r 

p.11 

W.C. BECKJORD - UNIT 

LIFE EXTENSION 

OUTAGE TEAM 

OUTAGE 

COORDINATOR 

BOILER AND PIPING 

FIELD ENGINEER 

I 

BOILER CONTRACTOR 

PIPING CONTRACTOR 

ASBESTOS REMOVAL 

CONTRACTOR 

INSULATION CONTRACTOR j 

CONDENSER CONTRACTOR (,_ J 

TURBINE-GENERATOR 

FIELD ENGINEER 

BOILER 

PLANNER 

ELECTRICAL 

FIELD ENGINEER 

TURBINE-GENERATOR 

CONTRACTOR 

TURBINE 

PLANNER 

ELECTRICAL | 

CONTRACTOR I 

ELECTRICAL 

TEST DEPT.. 

FIELD ENCINEER 

ASSISTANT 

FIGURE 2 

46 
WALTER C. BECKJORD STATION-UNIT 

LIFE EXTENSION 

ENGINEERING/DRAFTING/TEST 

MANPOWER 

i/. 

UJ 5 — 

O 

^_£x 

t Q oo 

ls2 § 

 ;=; o 

o_ :n 

UJ z 

UJ < 

2 *_• 

I—t 

o 

2 

UJ 

o 

00 

3 -

2 — 

I — 

0 — 

INSPECTIONS COMPLETE 

BOILER AND &0J>. STUDY 

SPEC R.F.O. ORDERED • • •-

(/) 

UJ 

> 

UJ 

Q_ 

O 

-3 

< 

2 

BOILER PARTS 

S M C RS.O. ORDERED 

• • •-

DELIVERED 

• 

| - atCTRICAL TESTING 

r- STARTUP 

B.OP. EQUIPMENT 

DaiVERED 

— • 

ASBESTOS 

SPEC RJ-.O. AIARD REMOVAL 

• • • » > 

DRAFTING 

OUTACC OUTAGE 

STARTS OVER 

IO-.S-H 1-25-15 

12^ 

PUNCH 

LIST 

ITEMS 

y* 

BOILER AND B.OJ". 

DSATI ING 

tlCHOTF 

•-

PARTS ORDERED 

TURBINE STUDY STUDY EVALUATION TURBINE MODIFICATIONS 

.-.->ozm«<E£z-J__»-»->ozi_|o_Q:>:z__ic_l»-»->c i 

C^OOIiJ4Q<-L2=l__3a i C_)OUJ<i_l<C_.S_3_3__ll_ I UOU J 

lDoZQ">U-a< a"»">"4tluOZC_"au_2<" :l6 ~»"J<n i

 — o z ~ 

1983 

o 

o z a 

cc ci 

<t a. 

__ < 

1984 1985 1986 

FIGURE A