p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 225 ) 11-1- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:02 AM Sheet 225of 276TT O <

_o / o t/ v U ^ ' - J i ri w)—=—-* 1-1

- * E*^ * 

## PUBLI C SERVIC

E COMMISSIONC DSPA&TMENTA lCORRESPONDENC E II-I- 5 Fil eNo . 6630-CE-13 3 Marc h7 , 198 8 FORCOMMISSIONCALENDA R TO : Th e Commissio n FROxM : R . S. Cullen , Administrato r

Engineerin g Divisio n 

# ft£

D . M . Dasho , Staf f Engineerr>/£ ? Engineerin g Divisio nj*^** ^

SUBJECT : Applicatio n o f Wisconsi n Electri c Powe r

Compan yfo r Authorit yt o PerformMajo r Renovatio n Maintenanc e o nPor t Washingto n Unit s 1 Through5 an d Commo nFacilities , Al l a t It s Por t Washingto n Powe r Plan t Locate d i n th e Cit yo f Por t Washington , Ozauke e Count y Lette r t o Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s Suggeste d Minute : Th e commissio n approve d a lette r t o the

Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s concernin g Wisconsi n Electri c Powe r Company' s Por t Washingto napplication . On Jul y13 , 1987 , the Wisconsi n Electri c Powe r Compan y (WEPCO ) file d an applicatio nfor authorit yt o perform majo r renovatio n maintenanc a o n Por t Washingto nUnit s 1 throug h5 an d the associate d commo n facilitie s a t it s Por t Washingto nPowe r Plan t (PWPP) .

A n issu e ha s come u p concerning the propose d renovation s a t FWF P a s i t concern s bot hthe Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s (DNR ) an

d the Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA) . 

### MAR 

### 1 6 1988 Air& Radiatio nBranc h U.S . EPA Regio nVP,3 _ 00'S-' S I/fr

O •Q^IH O S'93 * HH ^ *-)*:*f z

- 2

- Th e questio n wa s raise d b ya DN Rlette r date d Novembe r 9 , 1987 , (Attachmen t A ) t o the EPArequesting certai nclarification s regarding th e propose d project . Specifically , ho wthe provision s o f Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) regulation s woul d appl yt o th e propose d renovations . Recently , onNovembe r 4 , 1987 , the EPAmad e an agreemen t wit hthe DN Rconcernin g the delegatio n o f authorit yt o implemen t a PS D program . Th e delegatio nb yEPAt o DN Rstate s tha t "permit s issued unde r thi s delegatio nar e require d t o contai n languag e stating tha t th e PS D permi t i s issue d afte r determinin g tha t federa l PS D requirement s hav e bee nsatisfied, " Th e Wisconsi n DNRha s bee ndelegate d the authorit yt o mak e determination s o n PS D regulatio n i nthe state .

DNR' s lette r t o EP Astate d "the Stat e o f Wisconsi nwil l no t vie wthe renovation s a t the Por t Washingto nplan t t o actuall y modif yan

yo f th e boilers. " EPA' s respons e o nDecembe r 23 , 198 7 t o DN R(Attachmen t B ) state d tha t th e renovation s coul d be subjec t t o PS D regulations . On February4 , 198 8 (Attachmen t C) , the DN R sen t a follo wup lette r t o EP Ai n whic hi t state d agai n "i t i s th e opinio n o f DN Rtha t renovation s a t WEPCO-Por t Washingto n ar e simila r t o thos e a t Bekjor d an

d ar e indee d routin e i n natur e fo r a utility . Therefore , lik e a t Bekjord , a PS D permi t i s no t require d o f WEPC O fo r the under

takin g o f the propose d plan t lif e extensio n activities. " DN

Rgoe s o nt o ask , "Wha t i s you r vie wo f ou r interpretatio no f th e applicabilit y o f th e PS D regulation s t o th e WEPCO-Por t Washingto n renovations ? W e believ e tha t yo u wil l agre e tha t WEPC O ma yprocee d wit hthi s lif e extensio nprojec t withou t a PS D permit. " Th e issu e a t han

d i s whethe r o r no t the EPAwil l agre e wit hDN Ra s regard s a PS D permit . Th e importanc e o f a PS D permi t i s tha t it s emission s contro l requirement s ar e ver ystrict . WEPC O •*na--

- •- • *-.-'' p—^ -

^ v--"%•*•• > - - -. *

- v . . ^ —*

- - t - • -•• * •- * •---•. • - ~"* n ur ' yr. 1. ~ o 1 v . *

• i r r - ~ ^ ~**"-

yy. c* . r r ?P. 4 09!H D

### g'qs a bd 3 uoa d

S0 0 NO vparticulate , etc . Thes e standard s mayprov e t o b e mor e * I x t stric t tha n th e curren t Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) tha t ar e require d o f ne wgenerating units . Th e cos t o f providing thi s additiona l pollutio ncontro l equipmen t woul d i n al l likelihoo d sto p th e renovatio n project s fro mproceeding . Withou t th e renovatio n wor k a t th e PWPP , 16 0 MWo f capacit ywil l b e los t permanently .

Th e entir e Advanc e Plan5 submitte d b yWEPC O and th e Easter n Wisconsi n Utilitie s (EWU ) woul d hav e t o b e reconsidere d i f thi s capacit ywa s no t availabl e a s assume d i n th e plannin g process . Th e PWP P i s importan t no t onl yt o WEPC O bu t t o al l o f EWUbot hfo r generatio nand transmissio nsupport .

I t shoul d b e pointe d ou t tha t th e regulation s allo w emission s t o doubl e withou t an yrestriction s i f th e unit s wer e jus t operate d mor e hours .

I n it s February5 lette r t o th e EPA , th e DN Rstate d " A lette r summarizin g PSC' s fact s o n th e Por t Washingto nprojec t an d ho wi t fit s i n wit hWisconsin' s Utilit yAdvanc e Plan s i s i n process. " I n meeting s betwee n DN Rstaf f an

d commissio nstaf f i n January , staf f propose d sending a lette r t o DN Rwit hth e commission' s comment s o n thi s issue . A s DN Rpoint s ou t i n it s letter , i t ha s limite d experienc e i nutilit yboile r maintenanc e an d ha s discusse d thes e issue s wit hstaf f requestin g ou r assistanc e i n evaluatin g th e planne d maintenanc e activities . Engineerin g Divisio n ha s concurre d wit hDNR' s opinio nregardin g th e maintenanc e a t Por t Washington .P. 5 0 9 I H P g'?3 a frd3 l-IC'd d

Jd^tjl 1

- 4 - Engineerin g staf f view s the maintenanc e propose d fo r Por t Washingto n a s consisten t wit hth e requirement s no t onl yi n Advanc e Plan 4 bu t als o the directio nan d directive s tha t hav e bee n give n t o WEPC O ove r the year s regardin g it s powe r plants . Th e Advanc e Pla n 4 orde r provision s 37 , 3 8 an d 3 9 specificall y addresse d lif e extensio nand require d the utilitie s t o implemen t a generatin g plan t lif e extensio nprogramfro ma leas t cos t plannin g perspective . Th e poin t o f thes e provision s wa s tha t the detrimenta l environmenta l impact s o f ne wgeneratin g capacit yaddition s coul d b e eliminated , diminishe d o r deferred . Th e provision s g o o nt o stat e tha t th e commissio nneed s t o revie wth e plan s fo r generatin g plan t assessment s an d evaluation s t o ensur e the plan s wil l adequately , thoroughl yan

d consistentl yasses s an d evaluat e the cost s an d benefits . Al l utilitie s hav e submitte d o r wil l submi t plan s t o th e commission . Thes e AP- 4 provision s ar e clea r i nthei r intent .

i n PS C Fil e 5-9300,2 6 staf f ha s bee nmonitorin g powe r plan t performanc e i n detai l a t WEPC O sinc e Augus t o f 1979 . Discussion s betwee n WEPC O an d staf f lead staf f t o conclud e tha t a comprehensiv e approac hshoul d be take n a s regard s plan t availabilit yand reliability . Staf f wa s encourage d b yWEPCO' s us e o f a Plan t Availabilit yStud y(PAS ) i n 198 3 t o determin e a progra m fo r increasing plan t availability . Thos e recommendation s ar e the basi s fo r the Por t Washingto nProjects . Th e improvemen t i n availabilit yan

d reliabilit yi s the goa l o f thes e projects , no t plan t o r systemmodification . A s a resul t o f improving the plant' s performanc e the expecte d lif e o f the uni t wil l be extende d t o 2010 , Thi s i s a secondaryoutcom e o f cos t effectiv e improvement s t oP. 6 c p : n o .jP./

p I /PO' 0*9 Ul.lJi_lSlM_aji3_kI0^ _

- 5

- plan t availabilit yan dno t th e goa l o f th e projects . Maintainin g a plan t i ngoo dcondition , insurin g it s performanc e an d reliabilit yar e adequate , i s a proper , norma l an droutin e wa yfo r a utilit yt o operate .

Maintenanc e project s o f thi s natur e ar e routinel ydeal t wit hb yth e commission . Th e Account s an dFinanc e Divisio n classifie s maintenanc e an dcapita l project s a t powe r plant s ever y year . Mos t maintenanc e i s expense dan dsom e i s capitalized . I f A& F can' t determin e whethe r i t shoul db e capitalize do r expense d the yreques t Engineerin g t o advis e the man dfollo wou r recommendations .

Th e PWP P Projec t

PWP P i s mad e u p o f 5 unit s o f simila r desig n8 0 M Weach . Eac huni t use s th e traditiona l WEPC O arch-fire dboile r designe d fo r bas e loa doperation . Thi s origina l desig no f th e PWP P ha s mad e i t on e o f th e lowes t producer s o f nitroge noxide s (NOX ) i n th e country . Th e subsequen t additio no f generatin g unit s a t Oa k Creek , Pleasan t Prairie , Valle yan dPoin t Beac hha s mean t tha t th e PWP P ha s bee noperate dles s a s bas e loa dan dmor e a s cyclin g capacit yi nrecen t years . Th e increase dcyclin g o f th e plan t cause s mor e wea r an dtea r du e t o increase dtherma l cyclin g o f majo r components . Today' s increase dcyclin g operation s requir e improve dmonitorin g an dcontro l t o provid e fo r mor e efficien t uni t operation . I nadditio nt o changin g operationa l requirements , th e PWP P i s betwee n3 7 an d5 2 year s old . Equipmen t ha s wor nout , oricina l technolog yha dbecom e obsolet e an dplan t availabilit yha sP. 7 09IH O C-qq a HH 3 UQd r

-6

- declined . T o improv e operationa l efficiencies , reduc e cost s an d maintai n reliabl e servic e t o it s customers , WEPC O ha s proposed , t o undertak e a comprehensiv e plan t renovatio nmaintenanc e programa t PWPP . Ther e ar e 5 1 separat e project s propose d b yWEPC O fo r PWPP . Th e renovatio n wor k include s bot hunit-specifi c project s and project s commo n t o al l 5 units . Ther e ar e 6 simila r project s tha t involv e eac ho f th e 5 separat e unit s accountin g fo r 3 0 o f th e 5 1 projects .

Include d i n thes e ar e majo r rewor k o f the stea mturbin e spindle , blading , an d cylinde r cracks , a s necessary . I n additio n the mai n stea

m and rehea t pipin g wil l b e inspecte d an d replaced , a s necessary , o n al l 5 units .

Anothe r projec t involving al l 5 unit s wil l b e the replacin g o f existin g coa l pulverize r mil l duct s outle t piping wit hupgrade d materials . Th e duct s ar e th e pathwaybywhic hthe pulverize d coa l fromthe mill s i s injecte d int o th e boilers . Ove r a perio d o f years , erosio nan d corrosio n ha s cause d perforation s an d leakag e i n thes e ducts .

Becaus e o f thei r age , the unit s lac k th e up-to-dat e monitorin g an

d contro l system s necessaryfo r today' s demanding operation . A

n exampl e o f thi s i s th e presen t carbo nmonoxid e an d oxyge n (CO/02 ) monitorin g systeminstalle d i n th e boilers . Whil e adequat e whe n originall yinstalled , presen t monitorin g deficiencie s resul t i n les s boile r efficiency , highe r fue l use , increase d fa

n powe r requirement s an d fir e hazard s i nthe flyas h hopper s du e t o unburne d carbo n i nth e ash . Ane wCO/0 2 monitorin g systemincludin g 4 t o 5 newoxyge nanalyzer s pe r uni t woul d b e,.'

ri, ;-»•*•• .< * *

• -yVii'iim P. 8 I ' d95 ! o nA8/6I/t7 Q'0 9 IH O S ' 9^_J|^£_UI0dd ^

-7

- installed . Th e dat a wil l b e displaye d t o th e operator s through th e dat a acquisitio n system . Thi s wil l enhanc e the operator s abilit yt o operat e th e unit s mor e efficientl yan d reduc e the amoun t o f exces s ai r required .

Othe r aspect s o f the existin g dat a acquisitio nsystem ar e obsolete . Th e basi c problem s wit hthi s systemar e maintenanc e problem s du e t o unavailabilit yo f hardwar e an d parts , an

d softwar e limitations . Du e t o it s age , no compan yha s the skil l t o maintai n th e hardwar e and softwar e o f thi s system . N o backup exist s fo r th e remot e termina l unit s an d n o performanc e measuremen t an d monitorin g o f th e boiler/turbin e wer e incorporate d int o th e system . Th e plan t renovatio n call s fo r th e replacemen t o f th e existin g dat a acquisitio n systemwit ha moder n Distribute d Contro l System(DCS) . Th e DC S wil l incorporat e th e lates t desig nfeature s suc ha s distribute d architectur e fo r the dat a acquisitio ntask . Thi s systemwil l significantl yimprov e th e efficiency , safet yan d reliabilit yo f plan t operations . Installatio n o f thes e system s shoul d b e encourage d a t al l olde r units .

Th e renovatio n als o include s improving the plant' s wate r chemistrywit hth e installatio no f ne wboile r chemistryan d monitorin g system . Th e curren t systemo f manua l chemica l additio n an d monitorin g produce s unreliabl e result s wit hfrequen t exceedance s o f wate r chemistryparameter s fo r th e boilers . Improve d wate r chemistrywil l improv e boile r an d uni t performance . Th e tw o chimney s tha t serv e th e 5 unit s wil l hav e t o be renovated . Deterioratio n o f reenforce d concret e liner s ha s occurre d du e t o aci d attac k an d silicat e therma l stresses .,TI ' d iS-0 0 i8/6I/P 0 "09IH D S'-Sa a yd 3 i» J *"*>-

- ^ I

-8

- Inspectio n report s b yWEPC O reveale d cracking an d spalling o f th e liners . Lif e expectanc yo f th e liner s i nthei r curren t conditio n ma ybe les s tha n 5 years .

Additiona l commo n item s t o b e worke d on , replace d o r adde d during th e renovatio n includ e upgradin g th e compute r room HVA C system , installin g a ne wcompute r rooman d adding a fir e detectio n systemi n th e electrica l switche s locate d immediatel y adjacen t t o the turbin e floor . Thi s wor k i s neede d t o bring thes e facilitie s up t o curren t standards . Th e electrica l systemi s t o b e upgrade d an

d i s require d becaus e spar e part s fo r th e systemar e n o longe r available .

Fro mth e abov e descriptio n thes e ar e th e kind s o f project s tha t ar e don e o n a routin e basi s a t powe r plant s a s needed . Ther e i s nothin g uniqu e no r unusua l i nupgradin g obsolet e o r wor n ou t component s a t a powe r plant . Th e reaso ntha t th e project s hav e com e befor e th e commissio ni s tha t th e commissio n require d WEPC O t o lum p thes e project s togethe r and brin g thema s a group t o th e commission . Thes e project s i n al l likelihood , ha d i t no t bee n fo r Advanc e Pla n 4 , woul d hav e bee n don e o na piecemea l basi s a s uni t outage s wer e taking place . Th e determinatio no f whethe r o r no t thes e project s shoul d b e don e woul d b e base d strictl yo n economi c criteria . I f th e maintenanc e cos t o f a piec e o f equipmen t o r systemexcee d the cos t o f replacin g i t wit ha newe r piec e o f equipment , th e replacemen t woul d b e done . Thi s i s ordinarymaintenanc e analysis .

Non e o f thi s wor k wil l modif ythe operatio n o f thes e units . Th e wor k wil l improv e the safety , reliabilit yan dae.-o o is/si/p o 'O9IH O 9-93 * ya 3 way . P1 "

-9

- efficienc yo f uni t operation . Thi s typ e o f wor k goe s o na t powe r plant s o n a regula r basis .

A s fa r a s th e wor k o n th e boiler s i s concerned , onl yth e rea r steamdrum s o n Unit s 2 , 3. , 4 an d 5 wil l b e replace d an d th e precipitator s control s wil l b e modified . Th e rea r stea mdrum s hav e bee n *. ;oun

d t o hav e crack s i n themtha t requir e immediat e attention . Adeterminatio ntha t ther e i s a problem i na uni t an

d a componen t need s t o b e replace d i s something tha t i s don e o na regula r basis . Equipmen t i s constantl ybein g inspecte d t o determin e i f i t i s reliabl e and safe . Whil e the amoun t o f constructio n wor k fo r replacin g th e rea r stea mdrum s ma yb e large , th e cos t o f doing s o i s smal l i n compariso n t o th e replacemen t cos t o f th e boiler . Replacin g th e rea r stea mdru mwil l no t impac t o n th e ga s strea

mleaving th e boiler . I t wil l no t impac t th e quantit yo r typ e o f emissions .

Th e precipitato r modification s includ e upgradin g the electrica l control s o n th e existin g precipitators . Thes e control s ar e ol d an

d obsolet e and ca n n o longe r b e repaire d o r replaced . The ynee d t o b e upgrade d wit hne wcontrols . Thi s i s no t an increas e o r chang e i n th e operatio no f th e precipitators ; merel y a n upgradin g o f th e controls .

Engineerin g staf f ha s reviewe d thi s an d th e othe r project s i n detail . Thi s revie wha s pointe d up n o area s wher e ther e woul d b e unusua l o r unexpecte d project s takin g place . A t a powe r plant , maintenanc e and capita l project s ar e require d o na regula r basi s t o maintai n th e operatio no f the plant . Include d i n Attachmen t D i s a lette r fromWEPC O providing mor e detai l o nthe type s o f project s tha t ar e proposed .t'I' d6£ : 0 0i3/6i/tr 0 ; OE<IH O S"92 dri_AT



### -10

- P.1 1

WEPC O als o make s a goo d cas e o n th e poin t o f whethe r o r no t thes e project s ar e extending th e lif e o f th e units . I f yo u loo k a t i t froma n accountin g basi s an d assume tha t the plant s had a 3 5 yea r life , the n al l th e unit s hav e alread yhad lif e extension . Ye t n o specifi c "lif e extension " project s hav e bee n don e i n th e past ; merel yth e kind s o f wor k tha t keep the unit s operatin g i n a reliabl e fashion .

Fo r syste mplannin g purposes , a se t dat e i s use d fo r th e retiremen t o f a powe r plant . However , a s yo u approac htha t plannin g date , a s w e ar e wit hth e PWPP , i t become s clea r that , wit hregula r cost-effectiv e maintenanc e project s maintainin g the unit s i n a reliabl e condition , th e retiremen t date s coul d b e extende d furthe r int o th e planning horizon . Thi s doe s no t mea n tha t th e project s bein g don e ar e lif e extensio nproject s a s suc h bu t th e end resul t i s tha t th e plannin g horizo nma ychange . Th e plannin g horizo n i s onl ythat ; a plannin g horizon . I t i s no t a physica l assessmen t o f whe nthe plan t wil l reac hth e en d o f it s life . I t i s merel ya devic e t o us e fo r long-termlook s int o th e future . Thes e date s ar e the nrevise d a s necessarywhe na ne w plannin g cycl e i s done .

Th e Engineerin g Divisio n recommend s tha t the commissio n sen d a lette r t o DNRtha t woul d includ e thes e comment s i nsuppor t o f the positio n tha t thes e project s involv e routin e repair s and replacement s t o accomplis hthe propose d renovatio nmaintenanc e a t PWPP . Ther e i s nothin g unusua l o r differen t i nthe approac htha t WEPC O i s usin g i n assessing the maintenanc e requirement s fo r thi s powe r plant .aiblO i9I' dOt

- :Q O <LQr 6 I/ f 0'09ih. : = ••{,,=,

- -.. - - : —T""" - —

-11 - Th e project s take n a s a whol e wil l no t chang e the operatio n o f th e powe r plant . Theywil l no t modif yth e waycoa l i s burned ; theywil l no t modif ythe wa ythe ga s streami s treated ; theywil l no t modif yi n an ysens e th e desig no f thes e units . Thi s i s no t a modification , thi s i s renovatio nmaintenance . Thi s shoul d b e state d clearl yt o th e DNR .

I n taking thi s position , w e ar e makin g a nengineerin g determinatio n her e a t th e commissio no n howw e vie wthes e project s froma Publi c Servic e Commissio nstandpoint . I t i s up t o DN Ran d EP At o mak e thei r ow n determinatio n o n the applicabilit yo f thei r ai r qualit yregulations . Whateve r th e DN Rand th e EP Adecid e i n thi s matte r i s wha t w e wil l hav e t o wor k with .

Finally , i f th e commissio nchoose s no t t o tak e a positio n o n thi s issu e bot hDN Ran d th e utilit ywil l hav e t o procee d withou t ou r input . I t shoul d b e pointe d ou t tha t i f thi s projec t i s no t viewe d a s routin e i t wil l i nal l likelihoo d pu t an end t o integrate d comprehensiv e maintenanc e activitie s a t olde r utilit yplant s an

d industryboilers , viewin g broa d scal e maintenanc e activitie s a s majo r modification s wil l eliminat e an y desir e o n the par t o f utilitie s t o moderniz e olde r plants . Thi s woul d b e a resul t t o n o one' s benefit .

W e recommend th e attache d lette r b e sen t t o DNR , i n respons e t o it s reques t o n thi s matter .

RSC:DMD:reb0229880 1 cc : Do n Theiler , DN R Alle n Hubbard , DN

R