POWER August 2013 - 32

PLANT OF THE YEAR
1. Digital plant. The Turk Plant's control room consists of the many operator screens in the
background and the screens used by the engineers in the foreground. The Ovation distributed
control system was supplied by Emerson Process Management. Courtesy: AEP
toll on the project schedule, eventually delaying
the project 15 months beyond the original
startup date.
AEP and SWEPCO modified the contract
cost and delivery arrangement with CB&I to
account for the schedule and financial impact
of the delay. AEP also elected to assume
overall management of the project once the
settlement agreement (discussed below) was
reached. AEP set an expedited construction,
startup, and commissioning schedule with
the goal of completing the project by the end
of 2012.
Table 2. Key milestones for the John W. Turk, Jr. project. Construction of
Turk, completed over a five-year period, was one of the largest and most complex construction
projects in Arkansas and AEP history. Source: AEP
Date
Aug. 9, 2006
Aug. 9, 2006
Oct. 1, 2006
Nov. 1, 2006
May 1, 2007
Dec. 1, 2007
Mar. 1, 2008
July 1, 2008
1st quarter 2008
Nov. 5, 2008
Nov. 5, 2008
Jan. 1, 2009
June 1, 2009
Dec. 1, 2009
Jan. 22, 2010
Feb. 11, 2010
June 1, 2010
July 1, 2011
Dec. 22, 2011
Aug. 21, 2012
Oct. 24, 2011
Oct. 27, 2012
Nov. 8, 2012
Dec. 20, 2012
32
Project announcement
Submitted Air Permit Application to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ)
Land acquisition
Utility commission filings (Ark., La., Texas)
Major EPC contract signed with CB&I (formerly The Shaw Group)
Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC) Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and
Public Need (CECPN) approval
Louisiana PSC approval
Texas Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) approval
Site preconstruction preparation
ADEQ issues final air permit
Start of construction (after air permit finalized)
Power Plant Technology Program started at University of Arkansas Community College
at Hope
Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APCEC) hearing on appeal of the
air permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section 404 Permit issued
Air permit affirmed by the APCEC
COE Section 404 permit challenged
Following Arkansas Supreme Court reversal of Arkansas CECPN, SWEPCO changes status
for portion of the plant capacity originally planned to serve Arkansas retail customers
ADEQ landfill permit issued
Settlement of all legal challenges to project
First fire on gas
NPDES wastewater permit issued by ADEQ
First fire on coal
First synchronization with the grid
Commercial operations
www.powermag.com
First USC Boiler in the U.S.
The Turk Plant was the natural evolution
of AEP's early use of supercritical boiler
technology which began with the Philo
Unit 6 in Ohio (the world's first supercritical
unit, which operated from 1957 to
1975). Philo 6 was a double reheat design
rated at 120 MW, and it operated at 4,500
psi with steam temperatures of 1,150F,
1,050F, and 1,000F. Its boiler was also supplied
by B&W.
Some may point to Philadelphia Electric's
(now Exelon's) Eddystone Unit 1 as
the first USC plant because it successfully
operated at ultrasupercritical levels when
commissioned in 1960. However, today's
advanced metallurgy was not available at
the time, and the plant could reliably sustain
design steam temperatures for only a
few years before a steam temperature derate
was necessary. Your definition of what
constitutes a USC plant will guide your
decision about which plant deserves status
as No. 1. Eddystone Unit 1 was retired in
2011.
Although improved materials are now
readily available, no other USC units are
planned for the U.S., although there are many
in operation or under construction in other
POWER | August 2013
Project milestone
According to DeRuntz, the changes were
necessary because the two organizations'
goals were not in alignment during final
stages of the project: AEP needed to maintain
the committed schedule that would have
Turk operational by the end of 2012, but that
was not a feasible target for CB&I under its
FFP contract. The solution was to convert the
CB&I FFP construction contract to a timeand-materials
contract with certain incentives.
DeRuntz offered his opinion that the
CB&I construction work was well managed
under both contracting approaches.
The changes paid a large dividend to the
project team. When the plant declared commercial
operation on Dec. 20, 2012, on schedule,
all control systems were in automatic
control and the unit was released for dispatch
to the Southwest Power Pool (Table 2). The
plant control room is shown in Figure 1.

http://www.powermag.com

POWER August 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER August 2013