POWER August 2013 - 30

PLANT OF THE YEAR
Many Regulatory Barriers
Overcome
The Turk Plant was built to serve as the principal
source of low-cost, baseload electricity
for SWEPCO. However, not every stakeholder
was satisfied with that decision. Shortly
after SWEPCO announced the project, it
became a target of a national anti-coal campaign
and of organized opposition from local
groups with land holdings near the plant.
Virtually every regulatory and environmental
permitting decision was challenged, first in
the regulatory process and then in the judicial
system.
The litigation played out in a high-profile
public battle for nearly four years, until December
2011, when a key settlement was
reached that required SWEPCO, among
other things, to reiterate its decision to phase
out a 528-MW coal-fired unit in Texas, build
or secure 400 MW of renewable power, and
not build any new additional generating units
at the Turk site (and within a 30-mile radius)
as long as the Turk Plant is operational. The
settlement was aided by increased public
pressure in support of the project and the
lack of local opposition. The settlement cost
SWEPCO $10 million, which it agreed to
contribute to support land conservation and
clean energy in Arkansas, as well as $2 million
in attorney fee reimbursements to the
environmental groups.
SWEPCO also agreed, in return for a
resolution of all environmentally based legal
challenges, to combust only coal from the
Powder River Basin in Wyoming or subbituminous
coal with similar low-sulfur characteristics.
These
settlements cleared the way for the
plant's completion and commercial operation.
" This is a milestone addition of very efficient
generation during SWEPCO's 100th
anniversary to help meet the growing energy
needs of all SWEPCO customers, and we
heartily thank our many supporters of the
project these last six years, " said Venita McCellon-Allen,
SWEPCO president and chief
operating officer.
Strong Project Team
The structure of the project team that designed
and built the Turk Plant has become
more common in recent years, particularly
for those utilities with in-house engineering
capability that are comfortable building advanced
technology power plants. Instead of
placing responsibility for the entire project
with a single turnkey construction company,
AEP selected contractors and suppliers and
let each build its portion of the plant under
separate contracts. It's a reasonable balance
between project risk and the cost premium
for a single conventional engineering, pro30
Table
1. Major contractors and equipment suppliers to the John W.
Turk, Jr. project. Source: AEP
Contribution
Owner's engineer
Plant engineering and design
Plant construction
Steam generator
Steam generator erection
Steam turbine generator
Steam turbine generator erection
Selective catalytic reduction system
Fabric filter
Dry flue gas desulfurization (spray dry absorber)
Distributed control system
Sootblowers and furnace wall cleaning
Cooling tower
Condenser
Feedwater heaters
Circulating water pumps
Condensate pumps
Boiler feedwater pumps
Fuel handling
Auxiliary transformers
Large power transformers
Fly ash handling
Bottom ash handling submerged flight conveyer
Pebble lime preparation
Forced and induced draft fans
Primary air fans
Rail car dumper
Water treatment
Stack
Auxiliary boiler
curement, and construction contract. AEP
retained responsibility for a portion of the
plant's infrastructure development (such as
the railroad spur).
For the Turk Plant, there were three key
contracts:
■ The Babcock & Wilcox Co. (B&W) supplied
and erected the USC boiler and the
plant's complete air quality control systems.
That contract was based on a firm
fixed price (FFP) for the equipment supply
and a target price arrangement on erection,
with certain incentives.
■ Alstom Power supplied the USC steam
turbine and steam turbine-driven boiler
feed pump under an FFP contract.
■ CB&I (formerly The Shaw Group) prowww.powermag.com
Contributor
American
Electric Power Service Corp.
CB&I (formerly The Shaw Group)
CB&I (formerly The Shaw Group)
The Babcock & Wilcox Co.
The Babcock & Wilcox Co.
Alstom Power
CB&I (formerly The Shaw Group)
The Babcock & Wilcox Co. / Johnson Matthey (formerly
Argillon Catalyst)
The Babcock & Wilcox Co.
The Babcock & Wilcox Co.
Emerson Process Management
Diamond Power Co.
SPX
Yuba
TEI
Flygt
Flowserv Corp.
Flowserv Corp.
Roberts & Schaefer
ABB
ABB and VT
United Conveyor Corp.
United Conveyor Corp.
Chemco/MAC
Howden
ProcessBarron
Heyl and Patterson
Siemens
Commonwealth Dynamics Inc.
The Babcock & Wilcox Co.
vided the balance-of-plant engineering,
construction services, and management,
plus erection services for the steam turbine
under an FFP.
AEP's project manager, Joseph DeRuntz,
noted the high level of cooperation among
the major contractors and, in particular, the
CB&I and B&W craft workers and AEP
plant staff-especially in the area of worker
safety. Unlike other recent major power plant
projects, finding the required number of
qualified journeyman workers was not a significant
problem. Other key suppliers to the
Turk Project are included in Table 1.
Regulatory Rituals
The regulatory and court battles did take their
POWER | August 2013
http://www.powermag.com
POWER August 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER August 2013
