POWER August 2010 - 30

2010 PLANT OF THE YEAR
Table 3. Major contractors and equipment suppliers to the Oak Grove
project. Source: Luminant/Fluor
What
Oak Grove EPC contract
Plant engineering and design
Plant construction
Owner's engineer
Steam generator
Steam generator erection
Steam turbine generators
Selective catalytic reduction systems
Fabric filter
Wet flue gas desulfurization
Distributed control system
Sootblowers and furnace wall cleaning
Condensers
Feedwater heaters
Circulating water pumps
Condensate pumps
Who
Fluor
Fluor
Fluor
Burns & McDonnell
Unit 1: Combustion Engineering (now Alstom Power),
Unit 2: Babcock & Wilcox Co.
Fluor
General Electric
Babcock Power Environmental Inc.
Siemens Environmental Systems & Services (formerly Wheelabrator Inc.)
Babcock Power Environmental Inc.
Foxboro, Invensys Operations Management
Clyde Bergemann
Thermal Engineering International
SPx Heat Transfer Inc (formerly Yuba Heat Transfer)
Flowserve
Flowserve
Boiler feedwater pumps, Unit 1 pump turbines DeLaval, refurbished by Flowserve/DeLaval
Boiler feedwater pumps, Unit 2 pump turbines Flowserve/General Electric
Fuel handling
Auxiliary transformers
Large power transformers
Dry ash handling
Wet ash handling
Limestone preparation
Auxiliary boiler
Dewatering system
Roberts & Schaefer Co.
GE Prolec
ABB Inc.
United Conveyor Corp.
TLT Babcock
FFE Minerals
Rentech Boiler Systems Inc.
Westech Inc.
4. Upgraded gas path. New induced draft fans were required because the new air quality
control equipment added more draft loss than the original plant design. The new air quality
equipment added to each unit included, from right to left, a selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
system, baghouse (replacing the original electrostatic precipitator), induced draft fans, wet
scrubber, and stack. Installing SCR for NOx control is an industry first for a 100% lignite-fired
power plant in the U.S. Courtesy: Luminant, photo by Allison V. Smith
during which Fluor performed its due diligence
on the erector set of parts, design drawings and
specifications, plus what had been constructed
on site 30 year earlier. At the conclusion of the
due diligence period, Fluor was to report on
the parts and structures that could be reused
or modified, those that must be demolished or
discarded, and its plan for specifying and constructing
the two-unit plant.
Luminant and Fluor began the due diligence
period by confirming the inventory of parts and
assessing their condition using an assortment of
nondestructive evaluation testing and inspection
methods. In some cases, equipment was returned
to the vendor (or its successors) for overhaul or
upgrading to modern standards. Sometimes
the originally supplied equipment, though still
in good working condition, was inappropriate
for the new plant design. A good example was
the induced draft (ID) fans. Adding several new
air quality control system (AQCS) components
required upgraded fans to overcome the increased
pressure losses. Another example was
the partially completed boiler support structure
that had been exposed to the elements for 30
years. A thorough analysis found the need for
additional steel plates to meet current structural
codes and standards, particularly for wind loading
(Figure 4).
Some stored components, such as the feedwater
pumps and turbines, were returned to the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for repairs
or a complete overhaul. Other parts were
repaired or upgraded on site. Fluor also determined
that some of the concrete foundations
were inadequate, so they were subsequently demolished,
such as those for the ID fans and the
discarded electrostatic precipitator (ESP).
The second phase began with Fluor preparing
its proposed EPC contract terms and
conditions, based on the inspections and
front-end engineering. In sum, the EPC contract
required Fluor to assume responsibility
for all of the mothballed parts, complete the
redesign of the plant as necessary, and wrap
a custom set of guarantees and warranties
around the entire plant. This streamlined contracting
approach required Fluor to stand in
the place of the OEMs whose guarantees and
warranties had expired a generation ago.
Fluor and Luminant next hammered out the
terms of EPC contract with the assistance of
Burns & McDonnell in the role of owner's engineer.
The final contract was a more or less
standard lump sum EPC contract with Luminant
taking the risk on craft labor escalation.
Luminant's Von Thompson, vice president of
major projects and responsible for the Oak
Grove project, noted that this two-phase approach
to developing the final EPC contract
worked well for both Fluor and Luminant. As
evidence, he pointed to change orders totaling
less than 0.5% at the close of the project.
30
www.powermag.com
POWER | August 2010

http://www.powermag.com

POWER August 2010

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER August 2010