2015 11 Power Magazine

Vol. 159 • No. 11 • November 2015
Our 2015 Nuclear Top Plant
Award Winners
Controlling Unwelcome Critters
Coping with Boiler Load Cycling
Coal Dust Combustion Lessons
Learned
BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY FOR THE GLOBAL GENERATION INDUSTRY SINCE 1882

Duct Burner2
H.P. Superheater4
H.P. Evaporator5
H.P. Steam Drum15
L.P. Vent Silencer16
H.P. Vent Silencer14
L.P. Steam Drum w/ Integral Deaerator17
Distribution Grid1
Observation Port3 Injection Grid7
S.C.R.8
C.O. Catalyst6
H.P. Economizer10
L.P. Superheater11
H.P. Evaporator9
L.P. Evaporator 13
DA. Pre-Heater 12
Stack18
H.P. Steam Outlet
L.P. Superheater Outlet
BESTSUITED
FORGAS
TURBINESUP
TO120+MW.
In addition to designing and manufacturing
world-class industrial boilers, Victory
Gpgti{"qhhgtu"jkijn{/ghÝekgpv"JTUIu"
vjcv"ctg"ewuvqo/gpikpggtgf"hqt"jkij/Ýtg"
systems, including combined heat
cpf"rqygt"*EJR+"crrnkecvkqpu0
VEO HORIZON
®
Gas-Turbine HRSG
• Shop assembled modular design
promotes reduction in project
construction costs
• Fast start-up and rapid response
capabilities
•
Because of the current demand for small to
okf/uk|g"JTUI"u{uvgou."Xkevqt{"Gpgti{"
jcu"gzrcpfgf"vjgkt"gzkuvkpi"JQTK¥QP
®
Icu/Vwtdkpg"JTUI"Ugtkgu"up to 120+ MW0""
Work directly with industry experts
known world-wide for providing proven
JTUI"uqnwvkqpu"hqt"ukping"wpkvu."
multi-unit systems, cogen and combined
e{eng"crrnkecvkqpu0"
Call 918.274.0023.
Stop by Booth
#
10302 at Power-Gen 2015 and
get a FREE Megawatt Power Selector.
VICTORYENERGY.COM - 10701 EAST 126TH STREET NORTH, COLLINSVILLE, OKLAHOMA 74021
F O L L O W A L E A D E R
CIRCLE 1 ON READER SERVICE CARD

November 2015 |POWER www.powermag.com 1
Established 1882 • Vol. 159 • No. 11 November 2015
ONTHE COVER
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
located in the Sonoran Desert west of
Phoenix, uses 100% recycled municipal
wastewater for cooling its condensers.
The plant’s on-site treatment facility aer-
ates the reclaimed water as part of the
treatment process. Courtesy: Arizona
Public Service
SPEAKING OF POWER
Fuel Guidelines, Fuel Consumption, and Climate Change 6
GLOBAL MONITOR
New Options for Solar PV 8
India Refocuses Coal Future 9
THE BIG PICTURE: Levelized Cost of Electricity 10
Power Giants to Get Federal Funds to Develop Large-Scale
Carbon Capture Pilots 12
AREVA’s Next-Gen BWR Fuel IsTested in the U.S. 12
South Africa Puts First Large IPP Project Online 14
POWER Digest 16
FOCUS ON O&M
Smart Access Planning Enables Efficient CoolingTower Maintenance 18
LEGAL & REGULATORY
FERC’s Enforcement Priorities After 10Years Under the EPAct 22
By Carlos E. Gutierrez, counsel, Davis WrightTremaine
COVER FOCUS: NUCLEAR TOP PLANTS
The fate of nuclear fleets depends on where they are located. Countries gener-
ally are following one of three paths: widespread shutdowns, ramp-up in new
builds, or diligent maintenance of existing units. Our 2015 Top Plant Award
winners in the nuclear category demonstrate how varied the experience of
these plants can be.
Central Nuclear Néstor Kirchner (Atucha II), Lima, Argentina 24
The U.S. isn’t the only country to have seen work begin on a nuclear unit only
to halt for many years before being taken up again. In spite of what some-
times seemed like insurmountable odds, Atucha II represents not just new
capacity but also the revitalization of Argentina’s nuclear industry.
PaloVerde Nuclear Generating Station,Wintersburg, Arizona 28
This desert-sited nuclear plant, the largest power generator in the U.S., proves
that with superior operation and maintenance, a nuclear plant can be a record-
setter even as it moves into its “second lifetime” as a relicensed plant.
12
24
CONNECT WITH POWER
If you like POWER magazine, follow us online for timely industry news and comments.
Become our fan at facebook.com/POWERmagazine
Follow us on Twitter @POWERmagazine
Join the LinkedIn POWER magazine Group and the Women in Power Generation
Group

www.powermag.com POWER |November 20152
SPECIAL REPORT— OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Wildlife and Power Plants: New Solutions for Animal Problems 32
From the birds and the bees to invasive aquatic species, power plants around
the world struggle to cope safely and economically with unwelcome crea-
tures. But cope they must, because failing to stop these trespassers can result
in massive damage to plants and potential injury to people.
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Load Cycling and Boiler Metals: How to SaveYour Power Plant 38
As cycling former baseload units becomes the new normal, concerns about
cycling’s effects on equipment mount. You can minimize damage by under-
standing how it happens and which strategies mitigate undesired effects.
FUNDAMENTALS
Ensuring Reliable Boiler OperationThrough Proper Material Analysis 42
Many coal-fired units around the world are reaching middle age but still need
to run reliably.This article gives you suggestions for diagnosing and predict-
ing boiler health to ensure optimal operation for years to come.
SAFETY
Minimizing Coal Dust Combustion Hazards: Lessons from Laramie
River Station 46
Two coal dust combustion incidents in May 2013 resulted in injuries to two em-
ployees and damage to two units. Rather than quietly taking mitigating actions
and sweeping the experience under the rug, plant operators are sharing their
lessons learned and new best practices so others can adopt them and stay safe.
FUEL SUPPLIES
Marooned: How Island Power Systems Keep the Lights On 51
Isolated and small, island power systems face unique challenges, but the so-
lutions they deploy—both in terms of technology and fuel choices—some-
times signal new options for larger, interconnected systems.
PROJECT SITING
Turning Brownfields into Greenfields: From Coal to Clean Energy 55
From a little-known Environmental Protection Agency program that assists
in giving abandoned coal mine sites second wind, to a scheme for bundling
carbon credits with coal to create a “compliant fuel,” new options for coal
country are being deployed.
NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
On the Nuclear Frontier: New Designs Aim to Replace LWRs 60
The quest to replace light-water reactors (LWRs), which dominate today’s nu-
clear generating fleet, with cheaper-to-build reactors that promise additional
benefits continues, but the pace is slow and the challenges daunting.
COMMENTARY
Reduce OzoneWhen andWhere It Matters Most 68
By ValerieThomas, Paul Kerl, et al., Georgia Institute of Technology
■ GE Announces Digital Power Plant as Component of the Industrial Internet
■ China to Limit Support for High-Carbon Projects, Begin Nationwide Carbon Cap-and-
Trade by 2017
■ U.S. Nuclear Plants Are Operating Better than Ever
■ Xcel to Retire Two Units at Its Largest Coal-Fired Plant
■ EPA Finalizes Steam Electric Power Plant Effluent Guidelines
■ EPA Issues Final NAAQS Ozone Rule at 70 ppb [UPDATED]
■ Georgia Power to Close All Coal Ash Ponds in Response to EPA CCR Rule
ICYMI: TIMELY NEWS POSTED EACH WEEK ON POWERMAG.COM
32
38
51

@WECNuclear
Westinghouse
Electric Company
THE FIRST
Our vision is to help our customers generate safer, cleaner, more reliable energy
for more people and a better planet. We’re doing just that through the AP1000®
nuclear plants under construction around the globe. When the world needed a smart
technology solution for clean air energy with a small footprint, we developed our
small modular reactor. Now we’re changing the nuclear landscape again, bringing a
bright future for nuclear power with our recently announced lead-cooled fast reactor.
This Generation V plant will compete with the lowest-cost sources of fossil fuel
generation and complement the use of renewable energy. It will capitalize on the
high-performance capabilities of what the industry calls accident-tolerant fuel. Of
course, our growing reactor portfolio features the unparalleled safety and industry-
leading technology you expect from the global nuclear leader.
Find out more about our advanced nuclear plants:
www.westinghousenuclear.com/new-plants
WestinghouseElectricCompanyLLC
THE NEXT
GENERATION OF
ADVANCED
NUCLEAR PLANTS
TO INNOVATE

Visit POWER on the web: www.powermag.com
Subscribe online at: www.submag.com/sub/pw
POWER (ISSN 0032-5929) is published monthly by Access
Intelligence, LLC, 4 Choke Cherry Road, Second Floor, Rock-
ville, MD 20850. Periodicals Postage Paid at Rockville, MD
20850-4024 and at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to POWER, P.O. Box
3588, Northbrook, IL 60065-3588 . Email: pwr@omeda.com.
Canadian Post 40612608. Return Undeliverable Canadian
Addresses to: IMEX Global Solutions, P.O. BOX 25542, Lon-
don, ON N6C 6B2.
Subscriptions: Available at no charge only for qualified exec-
utives and engineering and supervisory personnel in electric
utilities, independent generating companies, consulting en-
gineering firms, process industries, and other manufacturing
industries. All others in the U.S. and U.S. possessions: $107
for one year, $171 for two years. In Canada: US$112 for one
year, US$188 for two years. Outside the U.S. and Canada:
US$227 for one year, US$368 for two years. Payment in full
or credit card information is required to process your order.
Subscription request must include subscriber name, title,
and company name. For new or renewal orders, call 847-501-
7541. Single copy price: $25.The publisher reserves the right
to accept or reject any order. Allow four to twelve weeks for
shipment of the first issue on subscriptions. Missing issues
must be claimed within three months for the U.S. or within
six months outside U.S.
For customer service and address changes, call 847-559-
7314 or fax 847-291-4816 or e-mail pwr@omeda.com or
write to POWER, P.O. Box 3588, Northbrook, IL 60065-3588.
Please include account number, which appears above name
on magazine mailing label or send entire label.
Photocopy Permission: For licensing and reprints of
POWER magazine content, please contact Wright’s Media at
877-652-5295 or sales@wrightsmedia.com.
General mailing address: POWER, 11000 Richmond Av-
enue, Suite 690, Houston, TX 77042.
Copyright: 2015 Access Intelligence. All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL & PRODUCTION
Editor: Dr. Gail Reitenbach
editor@powermag.com
Consulting Editor: Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Associate Editor: Thomas Overton, JD
Associate Editor: Sonal Patel
Associate Editor: Aaron Larson
Senior Graphic Designer: Michele White
Production Manager: Tony Campana, tcampana@accessintel.com
Contributors: Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Brandon Bell, Lee Buchsbaum,
Juan Moreno Cruz, Carlos E. Gutierrez, Paul Kerl, Rama S. Koripelli,
Kennedy Maize, Athanasios Nenes, Matthew Realff, Armistead Russell,
Joel Sokol, Valerie Thomas, Wenxiang Zhang
GENERATING COMPANY ADVISORYTEAM
T. Preston Gillespie, Jr., Senior Vice President-Nuclear Operations, Duke Energy
Pat McCarty, Generation Manager, Tacoma Power
Mark C. McCullough, Executive Vice President, Generation, American Electric Power
Sarah P. Orban Salati, Managing Director, New Energy Solutions, AES
ADVERTISING SALES
Publisher, Sales: Matthew Grant
Southeast U.S.: Matthew Grant, 713-343-1882, mattg@powermag.com
Central & Western U.S./Western Canada: Dan Gentile, 512-918-8075, dang@powermag.com
Eastern U.S./Eastern Canada/Latin America: Ed Mueller, 309-278-8120, edm@powermag.com
UK/Benelux/Scandinavia/Germany/
Switzerland/Austria/Eastern Europe: Petra Trautes, +49 69 5860 4760, ptrautes@accessintel.com
Italy/France/Spain/Portugal: Ferruccio Silvera, +39 (0) 2 284 6716, ferruccio@silvera.it
China: Rudy Teng, +86 13818181202, rudy.teng@enlib.com
Japan: Katsuhiro Ishii, +81 3 5691 3335, amskatsu@dream.com
India: Faredoon B. Kuka, 91 22 5570 3081/82, kuka@rmamedia.com
South Korea: Peter Kwon, +82 2 416 2876, +82 2 2202 9351, peterhkwon@hanmail.net
Classified Advertising
Diane Burleson, 512-337-7890, dburleson@powermag.com
POWER Buyers’ Guide Sales
Diane Burleson, 512-337-7890, dburleson@powermag.com
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT
Audience Development Director: Sarah Garwood
Marketing Manager: Jessica Grier
Fulfillment Manager: George Severine
CUSTOMER SERVICE
For subscriber service: pwr@omeda.com, 847-763-9509
Electronic and Paper Reprints: Wright’s Media, sales@wrightsmedia.com, 877-652-5295
List Sales: Statlistics, Jen Felling, j.felling@statlistics.com, 203-778-8700
All Other Customer Service: 713-343-1887
BUSINESS OFFICE
Access Intelligence, 11000 Richmond Avenue, Suite 690, Houston,TX 77042
Senior Vice President & Group Publisher
Aerospace, Energy, Healthcare: Jennifer Schwartz
Vice President and Publisher: Michael Grossman, 713-343-1887, mgrossman@accessintel.com
ACCESS INTELLIGENCE, LLC
4 Choke Cherry Road, 2nd Floor, Rockville, MD 20850
301-354-2000 • www.accessintel.com
Chief Executive Officer: Donald A. Pazour
Chief Operating Officer: Heather Farley
Exec.Vice President & Chief Financial Officer: Ed Pinedo
Exec.Vice President, Human Resources & Administration: Macy L. Fecto
Senior Vice President & Chief Information Officer: Rob Paciorek
Senior Vice President, Customer Acquisition and Retention: Sylvia Sierra
Senior Vice President, Digital Development: Alison Johns
Vice President, Production, Digital Media & Design: Michael Kraus
Vice President, Financial Planning & Internal Audit: Steve Barber
Vice President/Corporate Controller: Gerald Stasko

A World of Solutions
Visit www.CBI.com
THE TEAM YOU TRUST
As an integrated engineering, procurement and construction company,
CB&I can handle your gas-fired power generation project from start to
finish. Our portfolio of services includes engineering, procurement, pipe
and steel fabrication, construction and maintenance.
Today’s power market requires a team that can deliver with certainty.
When it comes to constructing new gas-fired power generation facilities
that are reliable and cost effective, trust CB&I’s in-depth market knowledge
and industry leading experience.
ADVANCED CLASS TURBINES
PRICE AND SCHEDULE CERTAINTY
INTEGRATED SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS
EXTENSIVE CRAFT RECRUITMENT/MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE
Contact CB&I at +1 704 343 7500 to learn how our complete solutions
in power can benefit your next project.
2015 MEDAL RECIPIENT
Entergy’s550MegawattNinemile6CCGTpowerplant
22M102015HCIRCLE 3 ON READER SERVICE CARD

SPEAKING OF POWER
Fuel Guidelines,
Fuel Consumption,
and Climate Change
S
ee if you can fill in the blanks: “A
debate has been created after a paper
was published in the BLANK Journal,
suggesting the new BLANK Guidelines . .
. are biased and based on an incomplete
survey of current studies.” That quote from
Digital Journal, referring to the British Med-
ical Journal and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines,
could just as plausibly have been about a
different journal and the Clean Power Plan
(CPP). Arguments over revised U.S. Dietary
Guidelines (due the end of this year) are
getting as heated as those over greenhouse
gas (GHG) regulations affecting power gen-
eration. Both sets of guidelines (the offi-
cial designation for the CPP) concern the
fuels we consume, and the development of
both raised issues of how that consumption
is related to climate change.
Although most adults can choose the
food they eat, they cannot, for the most
part, decide what fuels are used to generate
their electricity. In the U.S., utility commis-
sions as well as state and federal agencies
represent individuals in matters concerning
what types of generation are allowed to be
developed. But whenever there’s any sort
of regulation, even “guidelines,” there are
those who argue against the specifics—or
against regulation in general. I’m not in
the latter camp; the Volkswagen emissions-
testing “defeat” mechanism is just the lat-
est example of why we cannot simply trust
the market or corporations to always do
what’s safe or legal. But in some respects,
the details of government guidelines may
not always matter as much as critics claim.
The Sustainability Issue
One argument against the CPP is that the
Environmental Protection Agency is misusing
the Clean Air Act to compel GHG emissions
reductions. A similar argument was raised
with regard to U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
These guidelines are updated every five
years, and this time around, there was
discussion about whether sustainability
should be a consideration in what foods
were recommended. When the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee proposed
earlier this year that Americans eat a less-
resource-intensive diet, the North Ameri-
can Meat Institute (NAMI) fought back,
arguing that, pound for pound, meats,
though they require large amounts of land
and water to grow grains for feed, deliver
more nutrition and calories than grains
and fruit—an argument similar to the one
that fossil fuels have higher energy den-
sity than wind and solar energy.
In the end, sustainability was left to
other government programs and initia-
tives. Had it been included, the debate
would quickly have reached the boiling
point, as it would have pitted the meat
and dairy industries against grain and
vegetable producers. That’s because dif-
ferent foods require different amounts of
resources and result in different environ-
mental consequences, from water pollu-
tion to GHG emissions. The production of
all foods, even organic ones, has environ-
mental effects. (The same dynamics are
true of electricity sources.)
Water consumption is an obvious exam-
ple. A single almond, according to NAMI,
can require up to 2.8 liters of water (which
sounds more dramatic than when expressed
as 0.74 gallons); but that’s still less, on a
per-calorie comparison basis, than what’s
needed for beef production. Then there are
the direct and indirect GHG emissions—from
the obvious emissions of methane from cat-
tle to emissions resulting from tilling fields
used for vegetable and grain production.
There is, however, a significant differ-
ence between establishing GHG emissions
guidelines for already-regulated industries,
on matters where individuals have limited
power of choice, and making GHG reductions
or other sustainability goals a criterion for
dietary guidelines whose primary purpose
is to encourage individual humans’ health.
Reducing the environmental impacts of our
food choices may be a worthy goal, but it’s
more appropriately addressed as an educa-
tional (and perhaps moral) issue.
Personal Choice Overrides
Guidelines
Telling Americans what they should or
should not eat is far more likely to prompt
a response than guidelines shaping how fu-
els are used in power generation. (Google
Bloomberg soda.) For some, including chil-
dren who eat school-provided meals, those
choices are already curtailed. One mother I
know was aghast this fall when her eldest,
just starting kindergarten, was being fed
breakfast items far higher in sugar than
anything she would have served at home.
Yet, the school system dietician’s choices
are based on U.S. Dietary Guidelines.
School menus aside, for the majority of
Americans, dietary guidelines are less pow-
erful than they seem. Freedom to choose
what we eat can be as personally mean-
ingful as one’s choice of music. Although I
know individuals who actually are gluten-
intolerant, and those who have food aller-
gies or medical reasons for avoiding certain
foods, many have adopted low-carb/high-
fat or vegan or raw diets for purely personal
reasons—whether they be weight loss, reli-
gious beliefs, or philosophical positions.
Most days, my attitude toward dueling di-
etary choices is to live and let live. In a world
where millions still lack sufficient access to
nutritious food, most arguments about food
choices seem like shallow “First-World prob-
lems.” Whatever happened to “everything in
moderation”? That sounds a lot like the “all
of the above” energy plans put forth by both
federal and state leaders. Just one example:
New Mexico’s Republican governor recently
endorsed an all-of-the-above energy plan for
her fossil fuel–rich state, which also is rich
in solar and wind resources.
Regardless of dietary guidelines, most
adults will continue to follow their own
paths—from paleo to vegan to locavore.
Their choices will be shaped by a stew of sci-
ence, guidelines, marketing, doctor’s orders,
beliefs, and taste buds. The story’s not much
different for power. When given a choice—
which is becoming more common with
dropping prices for renewables and battery
storage—consumers large and small will opt
to consume specific fuels based on a mix of
price, convenience, marketing, beliefs, and
self-image, so it shouldn’t be surprising that
increasing numbers are choosing renewables
for climate-change reasons.
As for me, I’m in the omnivore, all-of-the-
above camp, provided everything is in sensi-
ble portions and produced as sustainably as
possible. Now, it’s time for my mid-afternoon
apple, almond, and chocolate break. ■
—Gail Reitenbach, PhD is POWER’s editor.

PCL.com/PICCo
W"; W"Iﾗﾐ I ﾗﾐ" ; ﾐW " ｴﾗ" W ﾗﾐS" ﾗ" ｴW" ﾐｷ W"Iﾗﾐ I ﾗﾐ"ﾐWWS "
ﾗa"IﾉｷWﾐ "ｷﾐ" ｴW" ﾗ W が"IﾗｪWﾐW ; ﾗﾐが"ﾗｷﾉ";ﾐS"ｪ; が" W ﾗIｴWﾏｷI;ﾉが";ﾐS"ﾏｷﾐｷﾐｪ"
ｷﾐS ｷW く" W"; W" ; ｷﾗﾐ; W";Hﾗ " ｴ; " W"Sﾗ";ﾐS";Hﾗ "I W; ﾐｪ" IIW a ﾉ"
ﾗ IﾗﾏW "aﾗ "ﾗ "IﾉｷWﾐ " ｴｷIｴ"ﾉW;S" ﾗ"ﾗ "ﾏ ;ﾉ" IIW く"
W"ﾉﾗﾗﾆ"HW ﾗﾐS" ｴW"ｷﾏﾏWSｷ; W" ﾗﾃWI "ﾐWWS " ﾗ" WW" ｴW"HｷｪｪW " ｷI Wぎ" ﾗ"
ﾐSW ;ﾐS" ﾗ "H ｷﾐW "ｪﾗ;ﾉが" ｴ; W" ﾗ " ｷｷﾗﾐ"ﾗa" IIW ";ﾐS" ﾗﾆ" WﾉW ﾉ "
ﾗ"W IWWS" ﾗ "W WI ; ﾗﾐく
TOGETHER
WE BUILD
SUCCESS.
640 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant
Louisville, Kentucky
Come visit us at
booth #6847
POWER-GEN®
Las Vegas, NV
Dec. 8-10

New Options for Solar PV
The global market for solar photovoltaic
(PV) panels shows no signs of slowing
down, with cumulative installed capacity
expected to reach 700 GW and annual de-
mand to pass 100 GW by 2020, according
to GTM Research. This booming market has
spurred manufacturers to introduce a va-
riety of innovations intended to increase
panel efficiency and reduce manufactur-
ing, installation, and ancillary costs.
South Korean firm LG Electronics intro-
duced a new version of its NeON PV cells
at the Solar Power International (SPI)
conference in Anaheim, Calif., in mid-Sep-
tember. The NeOn 2 makes several breaks
with traditional silicon PV cell design (Fig-
ure 1). First, rather than employ the usual
two- or three-ribbon approach across the
cell to gather the electric charge, the
NeON 2 uses an array of 12 wires.
LG says this design offers a number of
advantages. First, by dividing the current
among a larger number of conductors, the
electrical loss through each wire is greatly
reduced. Second, the use of round wires in
place of flat ribbons means light entering
the cell is scattered more efficiently and
less is reflected out. Finally, because each
cell has more conductors, microcracks and
other defects that develop in the cell over
time have far less effect on output be-
cause there are many more paths for the
electric current.
In addition, the NeON 2 cells are bifa-
cial, able to absorb light from both sides.
This makes them more efficient when sun-
light strikes the cells at less-than-ideal
angles during morning and evening hours.
LG says the 320-W, 60-cell NeON 2 pan-
els are able to generate more power than
conventional 72-cell panels and offer up
to 3% higher efficiency than the first-
generation NeON design.
Though they have garnered far fewer
sales and less attention than crystalline
silicon PV cells, thin-film copper-indium-
gallium-selenide (CIGS) panels have main-
tained a market niche (around 7% in 2015,
according to research firm IHS) because of
certain advantages they have over crys-
talline silicon–based panels, mainly that
they are lighter, thinner, more flexible,
and have a reduced visual footprint.
Taiwanese CIGS manufacturer Hulk En-
ergy Technology (Hulket) and Italian firm
ENERGYKA Electrosystem debuted a new
product at SPI that combines Hulket’s
CIGS panels into a flexible multi-panel
module (Figure 2). The Prometea modules
are available in outputs from 100 watts
to 500 W. They are foldable, portable, and
can be installed with far less effort and
additional equipment than crystalline sili-
con PV panels.
Finally, San Jose–based Silicor Ma-
terials has developed an alternative to
traditional polysilicon that is produced
through a proprietary metals-based pro-
cess requiring two-thirds less energy but
still achieving conversion efficiencies in
line with traditional materials. Silicor an-
nounced at SPI that it has secured $105
million in equity capital agreements to
support the construction of its first com-
mercial-scale manufacturing operation in
Grundartangi, Iceland. The company has
already secured sales commitments equal
to approximately 75% of the plant’s an-
nual production capacity, it said.
Silicor CEO Terry Jester told POWER
that the process is based on tradition-
al aluminum smelting, where silicon is
viewed as an impurity. Basing their fac-
tory in Iceland—where aluminum smelt-
ing is a major industry due to the island’s
cheap hydroelectric power—allows them
to reduce costs by partnering with local
aluminum companies. Unlike traditional
silicon production, which relies on hydro-
chloric acid and trichlorosilane, Silicor’s
process requires no toxic chemicals—a
major criticism that has been leveled
at the solar PV industry as its footprint
has grown. Jester said Silicor expects to
break ground on the factory next year
and begin production in 2018.
—Thomas W. Overton, JD, associate
editor1. Neon light. LG’s NeON 2 solar photo-
voltaic cells use an array of narrow wires to
gather power across the cell instead of the
traditional ribbons. Courtesy: LG Electronics
2. Solar accordion. The multi-panel Prometea CIGS module (2.2 m x 1.4 m x 4 mm) is
ideal for installation in areas with difficult topography or where traditional mounting approaches
are problematic. Courtesy: Hulk Energy Technology/ENERGYKA

India Refocuses Coal
Future
India, the world’s most coal-dependent
nation, has over the last few months very
publicly shifted its stance on coal power.
In October, the country announced its
commitment for the upcoming COP21
global climate talks in Paris, pledging to
improve the carbon emissions intensity of
its gross domestic product (GDP) by 33% to
35% below 2005 levels by 2030. That com-
pares to China’s recent pledge to reduce the
intensity of its GDP by 60% to 65% during
the same period. The Indian government,
which introduced the plan with much fan-
fare, said the target would allow India and
its carbon-intensive industrial neighbor to
have almost the same emission intensity
levels by 2030.
Perhaps more noteworthy, however, is
that India also pledged to increase the
share of electricity produced by non-fos-
sil fuels to an impressive 40% by 2030.
While that isn’t a steep increase for the
country whose current power mix in-
cludes 30% renewables, including hydro,
it is detrimental to its coal sector, which
it depends on to produce about 60% of
its power (Figure 3).
Plant Closures
The central government’s strategy to
boost power capacity yet cut carbon emis-
sions and utilize coal efficiently is novel:
It wants to close coal plants with a to-
tal generation capacity of 36 GW that are
more than 25 years old and replace them
with newer supercritical units. The driv-
ing factor for this approach is scarcity of
resources like land, water, and coal.
In a comprehensive review with
states held this September, the Central
Electricity Authority (CEA) pointed to
proposed supercritical coal power ca-
pacity additions of 84.6 GW in its 13th
Five Year Plan (2017–2022) and direct-
ed utilities to explore possible options
to use existing land and other facilities
more efficiently. The CEA will also re-
quire states to submit plans for the re-
tirement, replacement, and renovation
of aging plants. Several states—includ-
ing Maharashtra, Haryana, Rajasthan,
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,
and the newly created Telangana
state—have already chosen to kick-
3. Coal giant. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) this August commissioned the 500-
MW Unit 13 of the Vindhyachal SuperThermal Power Station in Vindhyanagar in Singrauli district
of Madhya Pradesh. This is the seventh 500-MW unit commissioned by BHEL at the plant.
Vindhyachal is a 4.7-GW pithead power plant. Courtesy: NTPC

THE BIG PICTURE: Levelized Cost of
Electricity
VARIABLERENEWABLES
Levelized cost of electricity **
($/MWh)
0 100 200 30050 150 25025 75 125 175 225 275 325
BASELOAD
350
Coal
Nuclear
Solar PV—Residential
Solar PV—Commercial
Solar PV—Utility-scale
Onshore wind
Offshore wind
375
Natural gas
CCGT
The notion of a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) has become a handy one for comparing unit costs of different technolo-
gies over their economic life, but it varies widely among countries. Those variations can typically be explained by changes
in discount rates*; fuel, carbon, or construction costs; operation and maintenance costs; and even load factors and plant
lifetimes. Source:"ProjectedCostsofGeneratingElectricity,"InternationalEnergyAgency/NuclearEnergyAgency(2015).For
more, see POWER's in-depth analysis of that report at http://goo.gl/fyyJhY.
—Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, a POWER associate editor
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
10% discount rate
KEY
Notes: *Discount rate = return on capital for an investor in the absence of speciﬁc market or technology risks; data is limited mostly to Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. **The International Energy Agency calculates average lifetime levelized costs on the basis of the
costs for investment; operation and maintenance; fuel; carbon emissions; and decommissioning and dismantling of 181 plants in 22 countries. These include
selected OECD member countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and U.S. Flags represent the highest- and lowest-cost OECD countries for each scenario.
South Korea
Japan
Portugal
UK
U.S.
Denmark
Austria
Belgium
Germany
France

Direct Drive
Direct drive cooling tower systems from Baldor eliminate
the need for mechanical components such as gearboxes,
jack shafts and couplings – greatly reducing cooling tower
maintenance and power consumption while increasing
system reliability. The field-proven, high torque Baldor AC
laminated motor is controlled by a purpose built ABB matched
performance adjustable speed drive to provide optimal speed,
quieter operation and lower energy use.
For new projects or retrofit applications, you can count on
Baldor for the ultimate cooling solution.
baldor.com 479-646-4711
4237"Dcnfqt"Gngevtke"Eqorcp{
The Ultimate
Cooling Solution
Download a QR reader app
and scan this code for
more information.
http://esp.to/wjOcA6

start the replacement of older plants,
seeking environmental clearances from
the Ministry of Environments, Forests,
and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
Strict New Environmental Rules Are
Coming
Finally, the government is committed to
curbing air pollution from coal-fired pow-
er plants.
This May, MoEFCC proposed the first-
ever federal standards for sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercu-
ry. The rule proposes to require the na-
tion’s fleet of plants larger than 500 MW
to meet SO2 limits of 200 milligrams per
normal cubic meter (mg/Nm3), and NOx
limits of 300 mg/Nm3. New plants com-
missioned after 2017 will be required
to have flue gas desulfurization to cut
SO2 emissions to 100 mg/Nm3, and they
would need to meet NOx norms of 100
mg/Nm3.
According to the Center for Science and
Environment (CSE), a New Delhi–based
public interest research and advocacy
group, the limits would imply cuts in SO2
emissions of 80% for existing plants and
about 15% in NOx emissions.
The rule would also limit mercury emis-
sions (achieved via pollution controls and
coal washing) to 0.03 mg/Nm3, the same
as China’s. (Comparatively, the U.S. limit
is 0.0017 mg/Nm3.) Then, they would
substantially tighten particulate emission
standards—India’s only federally mandat-
ed air pollution standards—to between
50 and 150 mg/Nm3. That’s “quite relaxed
compared to global norms of 30 mg/Nm3,”
notes CSE, but still effective. Earlier this
year, the group estimated that almost
two-thirds of India’s coal fleet doesn’t
meet existing limits.
And, as stringently, the rule calls for
water consumption limits. Once-through
cooling system–based plants would need
to convert to cooling towers and cut wa-
ter draw to 4 m3/MWh from the current
average of around 150 m3/MWh. “New
plants would need to cut water use to
2.5 m3/MWh, which is equal to the av-
erage water use of Chinese plants,” says
CSE. “A global best cooling tower based
plant has water consumption as low at
1.6m3/MWh.”
Power Giants to Get
Federal Funds to Develop
Large-Scale Carbon
Capture Pilots
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) wants
GE to plan and propose a large-scale pilot
test of a carbon dioxide capture solution
that uses a class of amino silicone com-
pounds used to soften hair or clothing.
The agency’s National Energy Technol-
ogy Laboratory (NETL) said in September
it will award the company $1 million in
Phase I funding to test the solution at the
CO2 Technology Center at Mongstad (TCM)
in Norway (Figure 4).
As GE explained, at temperatures of
around 105F, the amino silicone mate-
rials attach to CO2 gas. When the heat
is increased by another 100 degrees F,
the materials release the carbon and can
then be reused to capture more. While it
sounds unremarkable, the process holds
a major advantage over competing ap-
proaches because it does not require
water. That “substantially reduces the
energy required to capture the carbon,”
the company said.
GE’s proposal was among six projects
that will receive federal funding for large-
scale pilots to reduce the cost of carbon
capture and sequestration (CCS). South-
ern Co. will get about $700,000 to test
improvements to the CCS process using
an existing 25-MW, amine-based CO2 cap-
ture process at Plant Barry in Alabama.
NRG Energy will get $1 million to test
Inventys’ VeloxoTherm post-combustion
project, which will process a 10-MW slip-
stream of coal flue gas to separate CO2,
likely at NRG’s Petra Nova W.A. Parish
plant near Houston (where it is already
retrofitting a CCS system). The University
of Illinois will also get about $1 million
to capture 500 metric tons per day of CO2
with a 90% capture rate from existing
coal-fired boilers at the Abbott Power
Plant on its Urbana-Champaign campus,
using Linde/BASF’s amine-based absorp-
tion system.
Meanwhile, alongside GE, the Universi-
ty of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy
Research (CAER) will receive about $1
million for a pilot facility at TCM that will
use micro-algae to capture carbon from
power plant CO2 emissions. Alstom Power
will, at the same time, conduct a three-
year pilot program at TCM to implement
several concepts for improving and low-
ering the overall cost of Alstom’s chilled
ammonia process.
Only two of the six projects will qualify
for Phase II funding, the DOE expects. The
Phase 2 awards for construction and ex-
ecution of pilot testing are anticipated by
mid-2016.
AREVA’s Next-Gen BWR
Fuel Is Tested in the U.S.
AREVA has installed the first-ever boil-
ing water reactor (BWR) assemblies in the
U.S. that features an 11x11 fuel rod ar-
4. Capture facility. The Norwegian government began developing—but then canceled in
September 2013—a full-scale carbon-capture project at the CO2 Technology Center at Mong-
stad, in Norway. The state-of-the art research facility got a boost this fall, however, when the
U.S. Department of Energy said it will grant three entities millions of dollars in federal funds to
develop large-scale pilots to reduce the cost of carbon capture. Courtesy: TCM

ray, the French nuclear giant revealed this
September.
The new fuel design, the ATRIUM 11,
has been used to produce power at two
nuclear plants since April, though AREVA
declined to name the reactors. However,
the company told POWER that to date a
total of 40 lead fuel assemblies are oper-
ating in five reactors in four countries. In-
cluding the two in the U.S., they have also
been installed in Switzerland, Finland, and
Germany since 2012.
AREVA—a company that has designed
and manufactured fuel for both BWRs
and pressurized water reactors (PWRs)
for 40 years, but which also suffered
record losses in 2014—is determined
to return to profitability by refocusing
on its core nuclear power business. The
announcement marks a major milestone
for its fledgling lead fuel assembly de-
sign, which it says will provide higher
intrinsic safety margins. AREVA is also
developing the GAIA fuel assembly de-
sign for PWRs in parallel with the ATRI-
UM 11. There is substantial interest in
both designs in Europe and in the U.S.,
the company said.
AREVA said that the fuel design im-
proves safety by reducing fuel operating
temperatures and peak cladding stress
under operation. “When engineers balance
the uranium loading and enrichment, the
economic benefit is a bonus,” said AREVA
spokesperson Curtis Roberts in September.
Additionally, the new design offers better
operational flexibility, which is valuable
for plants that have implemented power
uprates or optimized capacity factor oper-
ating strategies, he said.
“Since it has the same external dimen-
sions, the ATRIUM 11 fuel design is installed
identically to the existing fuel design oper-
ating in each reactor,” Roberts explained.
“The fuel burns typically for three cycles
and, following each cycle, post-irradiation
examinations have been completed show-
ing expected performance.”
The 16 lead fuel assemblies installed at
the two unnamed reactors were manufac-
tured at the company’s Richland, Wash.,
facility (Figure 5). “The completion of
these real-life tests will allow delivery (in
full-scale quantities) of the ATRIUM 11 de-
sign in 2017 in Europe, and 2019 in the
U.S.,” said Roberts.
South Africa Puts First
Large IPP Project Online
South Africa reached a milestone this Sep-
tember when it put online its first large-
scale project owned by an independent
power producer (IPP). The inauguration of
the 335-MW Dedisa Peaking Power plant
located in Port Elizabeth, in the Eastern
Cape’s Coega Industrial Development Zone,
marks a shift in the way electricity is pro-
This is where KSB puts
our Energy
Our technology. Your success.
Pumps p Valves p Service
If you operate a conventional power station, you play an
important role in meeting the world’s energy needs. KSB’s
pumps and valves are designed with state-of-the-art
technology that will improve your overall plant performance
and reliability. The latest materials technology and our
engineers’ skill and experience are at your service.
www.ksbusa.com
5. New nuclear fuel design.
AREVA’s Ken McKeown inspects an ATRIUM
11 fuel rod assembly bundle at the compa-
ny’s fuel manufacturing facility in Richland,
Wash. Courtesy: AREVA

DesignEngineering•DigitalControlSystems•FloodingAnalysis•SecurityEngineeringandDesign•ElectricalAnalysis•RiskAssessments-PRA•SeismicEngineeringandAnalysis
StructuralAnalysis•EnvironmentalCompliance•Permitting•SitingStudies•Substations•FireProtectionandFireSafeShutdownServices•BuriedPiping•CWA316(b)Compliance
PowerUprate•EmergencyPlanning•PlantModificationsandUpgradeSupport•DecommissioningPlanning
500 TownPark Lane Kennesaw, GA 30144-5509 t 770.919.1930 e info@enercon.com
You know our name. You know our company. Our engineering services span
the power plant industry. With 29 strategically located offices and over 1750 employees ready to work
24/7, we live our credo—Excellence – Every Project. Every Day. Our focus has helped us become one of the
largest and most respected engineering and environmental firms serving the power industry.
With long term contracts in place to support power plant operators, we have become known as the
“go to company”for resources and technical expertise. Seismic and flooding analyses are just two of the
many areas we know and are recognized as industry experts. Recently acquiredTALISMAN and MARACOR
expand our capabilities in the regulatory, licensing and PRA areas.
Call or email. Find out why ENR consistently ranks us as a top design firm in the United States.
Supporting
Power.
One Generation
to the Next.

duced in the power-strapped country.
The plant is owned by Dedisa Peaking
Power (a subsidiary of French firm ENGIE,
formerly GDF Suez), Legend Power Solu-
tions, Mitsui & Co., and The Peaker Trust.
Built by Italian firms Ansaldo Energia and
Fata, the plant is currently an open cycle
gas turbine (OCGT) peaking facility (Figure
6) that will operate on diesel for about
four hours a day. Power will be sold to Es-
kom Holdings, the state-owned utility that
generates 95% of South Africa’s power, un-
der a 15-year power purchase agreement.
“In the longer term, the project’s sponsors
envisage a conversion to gas-fired, com-
bined cycle facility in the framework of
the Department of Energy [DOE] gas mas-
ter plan. The facility is designed to allow
such conversion,” Dedisa CEO Arnaud de
Limburg told POWER in September.
The project got its start in 2006 as
Eskom realized it would face debilitat-
ing power shortages if new generation
wasn’t built quickly, and it called on the
government to encourage a greater role
for the private sector in meeting the
country’s future electricity needs. Es-
kom argued that the measure would re-
duce the government’s funding burden,
relieve the utility’s borrowing require-
ments, and introduce generation tech-
nologies that it might not consider part
of its core function, such as distributed
generation, co-generation, and small-
scale renewable projects.
The DOE relented, and in August
2011—as the country battled chronic
power supply issues—it issued a request
for proposals, inviting IPPs to bid in a
competitive process. The open cycle gas
turbine (OCGT) program calls for 1,000 MW
of IPP-built power plants, of which Dedisa
is the first to begin operations.
“Being the very first IPP project in
South Africa, it took several years of
development before execution of con-
tracts with DOE and Eskom, and reach-
ing financial close in mid-2013,” said de
Limburg. While the DOE and Eskom have
plans for more large IPP-built projects
(including for coal and combined cycle
gas turbines), he noted that only one
other large-scale IPP-built project is
under construction in South Africa: the
670-MW Avon Peaking Power OCGT proj-
ect near Durban (KwaZulu-Natal).
POWER Digest
Dutch Court Clears Eemshaven Coal
Plant for Operation. A Dutch court on
Sept. 9 rejected claims that an environ-
mental license issued for RWE’s 1.6-GW
Eemshaven coal-fired power plant was is-
sued improperly, clearing the way for the
$3.36 billion plant to begin operations
at full capacity. Environmental groups
have opposed the plant’s location near
nature reserves. Both Germany—which
will soon phase out nuclear power—and
the Netherlands—whose gas fields are in
decline—back the hard coal project. The
project involved construction of two ultra-
supercritical coal-fired units, Block A and
Block B, that can start up and shut down
quickly. Construction began in 2008, and
the plant was scheduled to begin operat-
ing in 2014.
Flamanville Sees Costs Soar to
$11.8B, New Delays. French state-
controlled utility Électricité de France’s
(EDF’s) Flamanville reactor, which began
construction in northern France in 2007,
won’t come online until at least 2018,
the company said. Costs for the first-
of-its-kind EPR reactor have meanwhile
surged from €3.3 billion (2005 values)
to €8 billion ($9 billion) in 2012 and
€10.5 billion ($11.8 billion) in 2015. The
company said in a statement that 98%
of the building civil structure has been
completed as well as 60% of the elec-
tromechanical work. Putting in place a
new organizational structure, EDF said
it would now strive to complete instal-
lation of the primary circuit in the first
quarter of 2016 and load fuel and start
up the reactor by late 2018. Startup of
the much-delayed Olkiluoto 3 EPR under
construction in Finland is also slated for
2018. The world’s other two EPR projects,
Taishan 1 and 2 under construction in
China, could come online earlier, in 2016
and 2017. EDF is also considering build-
ing two EPRs in the UK.
Rostov Unit 3 Reactor Begins Com-
mercial Operation. Unit 3 of the Ros-
tov nuclear power plant in Russia has
been commissioned two months ahead
of schedule and is now operational, said
Russia’s state-owned nuclear entity Ro-
satom on Sept. 24. Construction of that
unit began in 2009. The nuclear plant is
located on the bank of the Tsimlyansk
Reservoir, about 14 km from Volgodonsk.
It now comprises three units with VVER-
1000 reactors. Unit 1 was put into com-
mercial operation in 2001 and Unit 2 in
December 2010. Unit 4, another VVER-
1000, is under construction with opera-
tions expected to begin in 2017.
Indonesia Kicks Off Coal Plant Con-
struction, Island Electrification, Tidal
Power Development. PT Bhimasena
Power Indonesia—a joint venture of J-
POWER, Adaro Power, and Itochu—on
Aug. 28 kicked off construction of the
2-GW PLTU Batang coal-fired plant in
Central Java, Indonesia. The $4 billion
ultrasupercritical project is the nation’s
first large-scale public-private partnership
(PPP) project. The two-unit plant could
come online by 2019.
Also on Aug. 28, Indonesia’s govern-
ment implemented a program to put
up 149 diesel gensets—a total of 67.8
MW—in 50 locations across 13 provinces
to supply power to customers in outer
islands and border areas. The provinc-
es include Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam,
North Sumatra, West Sumatra, Riau, Riau
6. IPP kickstart.The newly opened 335-MW Dedisa Peaking Power Plant in Port Elizabeth,
South Africa, is the first large-scale power project built in the country by an independent power
producer. Courtesy: Dedisa Peaking Power

Islands, West Kalimantan, North Kalimantan, East Kalimantan,
East Nusa Tenggara, North Sulawesi, Maluku, North Maluku, and
Papua.
Meanwhile, state-owned utility PT PLN signed a memorandum
of understanding with marine power projects developer SBS to
develop a tidal power project in West Nusa Tenggara. The $350
million tidal stream plant, which would be Indonesia’s first com-
mercial-scale project, would be built in phases beginning with an
initial 12-MW pilot and eventually scaled up to 140 MW.
AGL Sells Its Share in 420-MW Australian Wind Farm.
Australian power generator AGL Energy on Sept. 7 sold its
50% participating interest in the 420-MW Macarthur Wind
Farm joint venture to New Zealand–based investment manage-
ment firm Morrison & Co. for A$532 million. The remaining
50% interest is held by Malakoff Corp. Berhad. However, AGL
said it will continue to operate and maintain the Macarthur
Wind Farm on behalf of Morrison & Co. and Malakoff, and it
retains the rights to all Renewable Energy Certificates and
electricity output until 2038. The Macarthur Wind Farm—a
2013 POWER magazine Top Plant award winner—is located in
southwest Victoria. It was constructed by Vestas and Leigh-
ton Contractors with 140 Vestas V112, 3-MW turbines and was
completed in January 2013. “The sale of the Macarthur Wind
Farm is the first step toward AGL’s target of $1 billion in as-
set divestments by the end of FY17. The sale of this asset will
improve the company’s capital efficiency while retaining its
BBB credit rating,” the company said.
Westinghouse to Dismantle Closed German Nuclear
Plant. Westinghouse Electric Co. won a contract on Sept. 8
to dismantle the reactor pressure vessel and internals at the
Philippsburg Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 in Germany. The reac-
tor operated by EnBW Kernkraft GmbH was permanently shut-
tered by a German government mandate in the aftermath of the
2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan. Westinghouse’s scope in-
cludes planning, equipment manufacture, and on-site segmen-
tation of the reactor vessel internals and the reactor vessel,
including peripheral structures. The scope for the contract will
be executed by a consortium comprising NUKEM Technologies
Engineering Services GmbH (NTES) and GNS Gesellschaft
für Nuklear-Service mbH under the lead of Westinghouse
Electric Germany GmbH. The work will be carried out under
the direction of EnBW when the decommissioning license is
granted by the Ministry of the Environment, Climate, and En-
ergy of Baden-Württemberg.
Statkraft Opens 172-MW Hydro Plant in Peru. Norwe-
gian energy group Statkraft in late August opened the 172-MW
Cheves hydropower plant in Peru. The plant, 130 kilometers
north of the capitol Lima in the Huaura River, consists of two
aggregates and exploits a gross head of 600 meters. Based
on water from the Andes, it will generate 840 GWh annually,
power that will be sold on a long-term power purchase agree-
ment with eight local distribution companies.
Siemens Awarded Plant Components for Maryland Gas
Plant. Siemens will supply the main components for the 735-
MW natural gas–fired Keys Energy Center in Maryland to SNC-
Lavalin Constructors, who will act as the turnkey engineering,
procurement, construction contractor for the project. Siemens
will deliver two SGT6-5000F gas turbines, one SST-5000 steam
turbine, two air-cooled generators SGen-1000A, and the asso-
ciated turbine instrumentation and control systems. The plant,
owned by Public Service Enterprise Group, is expected to come
online in 2018. ■
—Sonal Patel is a POWER associate editor.
800.787.7325
e-mail: power@sealeze.com
www.sealeze.com
ISO 9001 Certified
For more than 25 years, Sealeze has helped design and manufacturing
engineers design solutions.
Adaptive Brush
Seal Solutions for
Air Preheaters
Sealeze’s patented brush-based
sealing system delivers reliability and
extended functional service life.
Replace seals less often
standard seals.
under deformation; reducing drag, wear and sudden
failures.
More effective than other seal
sizes and surface irregularities for a continuous seal.
creating a high integrity seal. Under pressure these
High performance. Long life.

Smart Access Planning
Enables Efficient Cooling
Tower Maintenance
Two hyperbolic cooling towers rise 495
feet over Exelon Corp.’s Byron Generating
Station about 110 miles west of Chicago,
Ill. The towers help cool the two Westing-
house pressurized water reactors that are
capable of generating up to 2,346 MW at
the site.
Like all classic wet transfer hyperbolic
cooling towers (Figure 1), the Byron Gen-
erating Station uses fill packs to increase
the exposed surface area of the water,
as well as to increase the air-to-water
contact time. These actions increase the
rate of heat transfer and the amount of
heat transfer, respectively. In a film-type
fill pack, water flows in a thin film over
stacks of vertically oriented plastic sheets
spaced about 0.75 inch apart. The sheets
feature a corrugated or V-shaped pattern
to further increase surface area and con-
tact time.
An Upgrade Is Warranted
Recent film-fill developments have cre-
ated low-clog, open, angular cross-corru-
gations that allow debris and biological
growth to pass through. However, this
design did not exist when the towers
at Byron were built. Over the years, the
station’s fill packs developed excess bio-
logical growth and accumulated silt. As a
result, the fill packs bulked up from less
than 100 pounds to more than five times
their original weight.
Normally, fill packs hang 30 to 35
feet above the cold-water basin (Fig-
ure 2). However, they are designed to
break away and fall from their attach-
ments when they get too heavy, a fea-
ture that prevents damage to the tower
structure.
When several of the fill packs attached
to the cooling towers of the Byron Gen-
erating Station became over-burdened
and fell into the cold water basin, Ex-
elon engineers decided to replace all of
the fill packs in both towers. They also
decided to replace the drift eliminators,
honeycomb-like PVC components (Figure
3) that hang above the water distribu-
tion system to capture and limit the
quantity of water droplets contained in
the air stream leaving the cooling tow-
er. In all, more than 5,000 components
would need replacement.
To perform the maintenance, Exelon
consulted SPX Cooling Technologies Inc.,
its cooling tower manufacturer. The work
had to be done within two three-week
windows, six months apart, while the re-
actors were shut down for routine sched-
uled refueling. Planning was critical.
Surprises, delays, or complications would
affect Exelon’s ability to deliver electricity
to northern Illinois.
1. Tall order. SPX Cooling Technologies Inc. was tasked with replacing more than 5,000
components in both of Byron Generating Station’s hyperbolic cooling towers during two three-
week maintenance periods. Courtesy: David Joel Photography
2. A cool design. During operation, water flows over fill packs (shown here being lifted into
position under the water distribution nozzles using a telehandler) in a thin film, improving heat
transfer by increasing the exposed surface area of the water. Courtesy: David Joel Photography

Working Quickly and Safely
SPX’s first challenge was getting access
to the fill packs in a way that would al-
low its staff to work quickly and safely.
As noted, the fill packs are above the
cooling basin, which holds 8.5 feet of
water. The drift eliminators are above the
fill packs, with components for the water
distribution located between them. The
basin itself also contains a network of
pipes for water circulation. During opera-
tion, water falls inside the cooling tower
at a rate nearly that of a thunderstorm.
In short, gaining access to the fill packs
and drift eliminators required extensive
planning, extreme efficiency, and atten-
tion to safety.
SPX has a longstanding relationship with
Safway Services, an access and industrial
services company based in Waukesha, Wis.
Safway specializes in complex industrial
environments where planning, efficiency,
and safety are all critical to success.
“We know Safway has the right equip-
ment, and we know they have the design
(engineering) services we need for an en-
vironment like this,” said Duane Krehbiel,
director of MCT Services Construction at
SPX and project manager for the Exelon
job. “With a job like this there’s a lot of
work up front, and we know Safway will
do it right.”
The Right Stuff
The “right equipment” Krehbiel mentioned
is Safway’s Systems Scaffold, which is en-
gineered to provide fast and easy erection.
To assemble it, workers hook horizontal or
diagonal members (galvanized steel tub-
ing) to rings on the vertical posts. Using
a hammer, they drive home a wedge until
a retainer pin drops and locks the member
in place.
To disassemble, workers lift the retain-
er pin with a Safway pry-bar hammer and
loosen the wedge with a quick flick of
the hammer. The design allows for 360-
degree placement around the vertical
post rings, and rings are spaced every 21
inches on vertical posts for easy height
adjustment (Figure 4). Special compo-
nent jacks, support frames, braces, and
varying lengths of the horizontal mem-
bers enable the scaffold to conform to
sloping surfaces (such as on a boiler cav-
ity), and all components can be passed
through small openings.
“Cooling towers present complex ac-
3. Puzzling pieces. In addition to chang-
ing fill packs, drift eliminators, stacked here on
beams above the water distribution nozzles,
were also replaced. Courtesy: David Joel Pho-
tography
sales.us@vanbeest.com www.vanbeest.com Member of Van Beest International
Van Beest B.V. is manufacturer and supplier of
wire rope- and chain accessories with branches
in The Netherlands, Germany, France and The USA.
We offer reliable and fast deliveries in North
America directly from our warehouse in Houston,
Texas.
Van Beest USA has the largest stock of quality
lifting equipment in the area.
Van Beest your reliable partner
STOCK IN THE
STOCK IN THE

cess situations, and working within the
time constraints of a refueling shutdown
demands speed. Systems Scaffold excels
in this type of environment because of its
adaptability,” noted Jim Waichunas, Saf-
way Tracking System coordinator for Saf-
way’s Eastern Division and SPX’s liaison for
the project.
To monitor every aspect of the Exelon
project, Waichunas used the Safway Track-
ing System, a proprietary software pro-
gram that manages all of the resources for
a project.
“The Safway Tracking System provides
a clear picture of costs and bottlenecks
and helps us to stay on top of other key
performance indicators in real time,” said
Waichunas.
Planning Leads to Success
With an outage of three weeks, Safway
wanted to give SPX workers as much time
as possible to perform their task. The plan
involved building four sections of scaffold
that would start on the outer ring of the
tower and work toward the inside of the
parabolic curve. When completed, each
section of scaffold would measure about
21 feet wide, 90 feet long, and 45 feet
high so the SPX crew could reach the drift
eliminators. After the SPX crew finished
work on one section, the Safway team
would dismantle the scaffold and move it
laterally to reach a new area (picture clock
hands sweeping around the dial).
“The eight-and-a-half-feet of water in
the cold water basin and the constant
‘rainstorm’ inside the parabolic curve pre-
sented the biggest challenges to sched-
uling,” said Waichunas. “Exelon couldn’t
drain the basin or stop the cooling water
spray until the outage began.”
Two weeks prior to the scheduled out-
age, Exelon brought in divers. Directed by
the Safway team, the divers erected the
Systems Scaffold base (standard screw
jacks and wood blocking) and one level of
scaffolding underwater.
“It required good planning because
there was a pretty strong current moving
through the water,” Waichunas recalled.
With the base in place, the Safway crew
erected as much scaffold as they could in
the outer ring of the cooling tower, work-
ing up to the edge of the rainstorm. Once
the reactor outage began, the Safway team
quickly built the scaffold up to full height
and the SPX personnel took over.
Krehbiel said SPX and Safway had
worked out a “Plan B” to allow work in
wet areas with a partial shutdown of the
spray system if the job went longer than
three weeks. As it turned out, they didn’t
need it. With demonstrated success, the
Safway and SPX teams completed work on
the second tower about six months later
using a similar schedule.
In both cases the SPX team accom-
plished its mission in the allotted three
weeks with no major incidents (Figure 5).
Once the maintenance was complete, the
Safway crew finished removing the scaf-
folding—about a two-week job.
“The take-down was actually done in
phases, because our crew dismantled
sections of scaffolding where the re-
placement of materials was finished,”
Waichunas, said. “Systems Scaffold is
also simple to take down, which makes
things more efficient.” ■
—Edited by Aaron Larson, a POWER
associate editor.
4. Versatile construction. Post rings on Safway’s Systems Scaffold allow quick assem-
bly and offer a variety of orientation options to meet diverse project needs. Courtesy: David Joel
Photography
5. Finishing touches.The final drift eliminators are placed into position. Drift eliminators
are the last component that air and water vapor pass across before rising through the shell and
out the top of the tower. Courtesy: David Joel Photography

FERC’s Enforcement
Priorities After 10 Years
Under the EPAct
Carlos E. Gutierrez
O
n August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct)
was signed into law. It remains, arguably, the last signifi-
cant piece of energy legislation to be enacted in the U.S.
The changes wrought by EPAct are far-reaching and controver-
sial, and for the gas and electric industry, perhaps no change
has been more significant than the law’s transformation of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) into a formidable
enforcement agency.
EPAct endowed FERC with authority to impose civil penalties
of up to $1 million, per day, per violation under the Federal Power
Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act, and the Natural Gas Policy Act,
and FERC has aggressively staked out its enforcement territory.
Since 2007, the Commission has imposed over $642 million in
civil penalties and ordered disgorgement of more than $300 mil-
lion in profits. Two areas attracting a significant amount of FERC’s
attention over the past decade include market manipulation and
protection of the electric grid from cyberattacks.
Market Manipulation
In July 2013, FERC entered into a consent agreement requiring
JP Morgan to pay a $285 million civil penalty and disgorge $125
million in profits for allegedly making bids in the electric mar-
kets administered by the California Independent System Operator
(CAISO) and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator that
were designed to create artificial conditions that forced those
ISOs to pay JP Morgan outside the market at premium rates.
In the Hunter case in 2013, FERC had a civil penalty for alleged
market manipulation rejected by the D.C. Circuit for encroaching
on futures markets found to be subject to the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction.
In four other cases, FERC’s role as the adjudicator of market
manipulation is under assault as the defendants have elected
to force FERC to file suit in federal district court, where there
is to be de novo review under FPA Section 31(d)(3). These cases
include challenges to:
■ A July 2013 order in which FERC required Barclays to pay $435
million in civil penalties and $34.9 million in disgorged profits
for allegedly engaging in certain physical market trades for the
sole purpose of benefitting its financial swap positions.
■ An August 2013 order in which FERC required Competitive En-
ergy Services to pay a civil penalty of $7.5 million for alleg-
edly devising and implementing a fraudulent scheme whereby
one of its demand response service provider clients inflated its
baseline energy usage in order to capture demand-response
revenues from artificial load reductions.
■ A May 2015 order in which FERC imposed civil penalties of
$30 million on Powhatan Energy Fund and others for allegedly
placing round-trip up-to-congestion bids in order to profit
from the distribution of transmission line–loss credits.
■ A May 2015 order in which FERC required Maxim Power Corp. to
pay a civil penalty of $5 million for allegedly falsely reporting
to ISO New England that it was burning oil rather than cheaper
natural gas and thereby collecting inflated make-whole pay-
ments from the ISO.
In each of these cases, FERC is taking the position that the
de novo review provided for under FPA Section 31(d)(3) means
simply that the court should decide the case based on the re-
cord that was before FERC without according any deference to
FERC’s decision, while the defendants are generally claiming
that de novo review means that the case is to be re-adjudicated
at the district court level with full rights to discovery and to
introduce evidence. If the courts adopt Barclays’ interpretation
of what de novo review means in this context, this could prove
to be an effective avenue to rein in FERC’s aggressive enforce-
ment tactics.
Cybersecurity
FERC has made “serious violations” of North American Electric
Reliability Corp. (NERC) standards a major enforcement priority.
FERC and the electric industry have given considerable atten-
tion to the development and refinement of Critical Infrastructure
Protection reliability standards (CIP Standards) that are intended
to protect the electric grid from cyberattacks. Frequent changes
to CIP Standards reflect an effort to keep up with the increas-
ingly innovative ways that hackers can exploit a vulnerable bulk
electric system and inflict substantial damage on the American
economy.
In the last two years alone, FERC has conditionally accepted
Version 5 of the CIP Standards and then conditionally accepted
seven modified Version 6 standards. In its most recent proposed
rulemaking regarding CIP Standards, FERC has further directed
NERC to develop a new (or modified) CIP Standard that will ad-
dress supply chain vulnerability to targeted malware and inevita-
bly introduce new Version 7 standards. This proposal marks only
the third time FERC has used its EPAct authority to require NERC
to propose a new standard, highlighting the careful attention
FERC has devoted to cybersecurity threats. This concern with cy-
bersecurity may be well placed, as a recent report by Lloyd’s and
the University of Cambridge Centre for Risk Studies estimates
that a large-scale cyberattack on the U.S. grid could cost the
economy over $100 billion.
FERC seems to relish its role as an enforcement force in the
electric industry under EPAct. It remains to be seen, though,
whether its authority will be curtailed by the courts or whether
an industry burdened with high compliance costs and exposure
will push back enough to spawn the next major piece of energy
legislation in the U.S. ■
—Carlos E. Gutierrez (carlosgutierrez@dwt.com) is counsel in
Davis Wright Tremaine’s Energy practice group in the firm’s New
York, N.Y., office.

TOP PLANTS
Central Nuclear Néstor Kirchner
(Atucha II), Lima, Argentina
Owner/operator: Nucleoeléctrica Argentina S.A.
A
s with many other nations in the de-
veloping world, Argentina has seen
the course of its nuclear power pro-
gram rise and fall with the country’s eco-
nomic and political fortunes. Argentina first
turned to nuclear power in the 1960s, and
the country’s first nuclear reactor, Atucha I,
entered commercial operation in 1974 at a
site near Lima on the banks of the Parana
River about 100 kilometers (km) northwest
of Buenos Aires.
Atucha I is a 357-MW pressurized heavy-
water reactor (PHWR) built by German firm
Kraftwerk Union (KWU), which at the time
was a joint venture composed of the nuclear
business units of Siemens and AEG. In the
1970s, the military government decided to
bring four more nuclear reactors online be-
tween 1987 and 1997. Siemens, which had
by then bought out AEG’s shares in KWU,
submitted a design for a second, 745-MW
PHWR at the Atucha site.
As originally intended, Atucha II was to
be built by a joint venture between KWU and
the Argentine Atomic Energy Commission
(Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica,
CNEA), using a Siemens-KWU design that
was essentially a larger version of Atucha I.
Intermittent Progress
Construction began in 1981, but ongoing
weaknesses in the Argentine economy meant
that funds for the project were limited. Fol-
lowing the overthrow of the military govern-
ment and the return to democratic elections
in 1983, construction slowed even further as
national attention was pulled away by more
pressing issues.
Between 1983 and 1994, the project pro-
ceeded in fits and starts as funds became
available. Construction on some of the main
buildings advanced, and materials were
stockpiled on site. Though more significant
progress was made between 1991 and 1994
as more funds were allocated, the project
was finally halted in 1994 with the plant
about 81% complete. The main buildings
had been erected, but very little electrome-
chanical work had been completed.
In 1994, a new entity, Nucleoeléctrica Ar-
gentina (NA), was set up to take over nuclear
development from CNEA. But ongoing chal-
lenges in the national economy meant there
were insufficient resources to complete Atu-
cha II at the time.
In the intervening years, the site lay idle
as the workforce dispersed and the local
construction and engineering expertise that
would be necessary to complete the plant
waned. Siemens finally withdrew from the
project in 2000. Meanwhile, a skeleton staff
of about 150 worked to preserve 40,000 tons
of materials—comprising 85,000 separate
items—that were stored at the site and other
locations.
During the late 1990s, Argentina’s econ-
omy continued to contract as a result of in-
ternal and external factors, culminating in
an economic crisis that began in 1998 and
reached its worst in late 2001, when the gov-
ernment defaulted on its public debt and riots
wracked major cities for weeks. Not until
the election of Néstor Kirchner in 2003 and
major changes in economic policies were en-
acted did the nation begin to recover.
Begun with grand ambitions in the early 1980s, the second unit at Argentina’s Atu-
cha site ran smack into the country’s economic crises in the following decade. But a
determined crew brought the project to completion after a 13-year hiatus through a
focus on rebuilding the nation’s nuclear labor force.
Thomas W. Overton, JD
Courtesy: Nucleoeléctrica Argentina S.A.

Indeck Group of Companies
Indeck Keystone Energy LLC • Indeck Power Equipment Co. • Indeck Boiler Corp. • Indeck Energy Services Inc.
(814) 464-1200 • 24-HR Parts: (800) 322-5995 • www.indeck-keystone.com • info@indeck-keystone.com

TOP PLANTS
Back in Business
By 2006, Argentina was finally back on its
feet and experiencing economic growth.
That August, the government announced a
$3.5 billion plan to revitalize the country’s
nuclear sector, which included $600 million
for completing Atucha II. Argentina’s desire
to increase the share of nuclear in the power
mix and reduce dependence on imported fos-
sil fuels—especially natural gas—lay behind
the decision.
But restarting the project after more than a
decade was a significant challenge for a va-
riety of reasons. NA, which would serve as
the architect-engineer and design authority,
needed to close out the original contract with
Siemens-KWU and obtain the intellectual
property rights for the design in order to fin-
ish the work. More significantly, it needed to
rebuild the local workforce.
NA formed cooperative agreements with
Argentine companies and institutions as
well as foreign organizations such as the
International Atomic Energy Agency, Sie-
mens, and AREVA. To staff the project,
available personnel who had worked on the
plant originally were called back, and new
engineers, technicians, and construction
workers were recruited and trained along-
side the veterans. Construction resumed in
November 2006.
Because so many new workers with so
many different skills needed to be brought
in, a special committee was formed to iden-
tify all specific labor needs and determine
how they would be filled. In addition, con-
struction tasks were broken down into four
levels of expertise—from construction of
the pressure vessel and primary piping, re-
quiring the highest qualifications, down to
basic construction tasks—to ensure labor
resources were allocated most efficiently.
NA worked directly with the local
unions and contractors to structure the
construction contracts and develop a suffi-
ciently flexible process to support on-the-
job training. Among other achievements,
more than 1,400 new welders were trained
and qualified as part of the project. Per-
sonnel on site rose from a few hundred to
more than 5,000 within two years, peaking
at nearly 7,500 in 2010.
Another challenge was refurbishing the
partially finished plant so that construc-
tion could resume safely and effectively.
The communications and data processing
networks had to be updated to support new
standards (Figure 1). Temporary power, wa-
ter, security, and sewage systems, as well as
other temporary facilities that had lain idle
for more than a decade, had to be cleaned
up, reconditioned, and integrated with new
facilities to support construction.
Electromechanical construction re-
sumed in mid-2007. The heavy-water de-
sign required 600 metric tons of heavy
water, which was produced at the coun-
try’s indigenous heavy water production
plant in Arroyito. Production of heavy wa-
ter was completed in June 2012. Primary
system pressure testing was conducted in
early 2013, and fuel and heavy water were
loaded into the reactor later that year. First
criticality was achieved in June 2014, and
100% power was achieved for the first time
that November.
Ultimately, more than 43 million construc-
tion man-hours, of which 99% were local,
would be expended in completing the plant.
Native Expertise
Atucha II, now named for former president
Kirchner, was declared commercially opera-
tional by his widow, current President Cris-
tina Fernández de Kirchner on February 19,
2015. In opening the plant, she hailed the
work done by Argentine firms and labor in
completing the project.
“To those who some days ago were doubt-
ful of the agreements we went to sign in order
to make our economy grow and attract new
investments, I want to say that all the work
for this nuclear plant was done by Argentine
people, Argentine brains, Argentine labour,
because, you know something? We, the Ar-
gentine people have begun once again to go
down a path that we had abandoned,” Kirch-
ner said.
“In the nineties, Argentina—partly, it is
fair to say, because of external pressure—
abandoned its role as the most important
nuclear actor in Latin America. Today, we
are reclaiming that role by fully opening
this plant.”
The success in completing Atucha II has
indeed given renewed momentum to Argen-
tina’s nuclear sector.
Two more units are planned at the site,
with construction tentatively slated to begin
in 2016 and 2017. The country has signed co-
operation agreements with Russia and China
for future nuclear development, including
possible reactor construction.
Finally, Argentina is arguably furthest
along with small modular reactor develop-
ment, with its 25-MW CAREM design—
nearing completion at the Atucha site and set
to begin testing next year. (For more on CA-
REM, see “Small Modular Reactors Speak-
ing in Foreign Tongues” in the January 2015
issue.) ■
—Thomas W. Overton, JD is a POWER
associate editor.
POWER POINTS
Winning Attributes
Restarted and completed the
project after repeated economic
challenges forced a decade-long
interruption
Rebuilt the national nuclear labor
force by training thousands of
new engineers, technicians, and
construction workers
1. Upgraded.When the Atucha II project was restarted in 2006, one key task was updating
the unfinished instrumentation and controls systems to modern standards. Courtesy: Nucle-
oeléctrica Argentina S.A.

12
nuscalepower.com
NuScale Power
© 2015 NuScale Power, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
NuScale Power has created a new kind of nuclear power plant: one that is safe, reliable, and
economical. The innovative design incorporates all of the components for steam generation and
heat exchange into a single integrated unit, the NuScale Power Module™ (NPM). Using up to
12 of these 50MWe (gross) NPMs, a NuScale nuclear power plant can provide 600 MWe (gross)
of safe, carbon-free, electrical generation. The compact design of the NPM allows it to be built and
assembled in a U.S. factory, then shipped to a prepared site for easy deployment. The design
eliminates many costly, complex systems while cutting-edge manufacturing cuts time and cost
of production. The result: a power source that is simultaneously safe, reliable, scalable, carbon-free,
and economical. Innovation: the Element of Nu™.

TOP PLANTS
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station, Wintersburg, Arizona
P
alo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
(Palo Verde), located on 4,000 acres
deep in the Arizona desert about 50
miles west of Phoenix, serves the electricity
needs of approximately four million people
in Arizona (about 35% of its power needs),
Southern California, New Mexico, and far
west Texas. The plant, which began construc-
tion in 1976 and was completed in 1988 at
a cost of $5.9 billion, features three units
with—unlike most nuclear plants—very lit-
tle common infrastructure between the units.
Palo Verde has long been the largest U.S.
nuclear power plant as measured by power
generation.
Steam is produced by Combustion Engi-
neering System 80 pressurized water reactors
in a 2 x 4 configuration—four main reactor
cooling pumps circulate 111,000 gpm of pri-
mary coolant through two steam generators.
The reactors were originally licensed to oper-
ate in 1985, 1986, and 1987, and each was
initially rated at 3,990 MWt. The General
Electric generators remain the largest 60 Hz
generators in worldwide service at a nuclear
power plant.
Since 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission (NRC) has approved in-
creases in the net generating capacity of
each unit to 1,311, 1,314, and 1,312 MW,
respectively, as a result of plant upgrades.
Operating license extensions for each of
the three units were approved in 2011, ex-
tending plant operation until 2045, 2046,
and 2047, respectively.
“Our mission is to safely and efficiently
generate electricity for the long term,” said
Randy Edington, executive vice president
and chief nuclear officer for Arizona Public
Service Co. (APS), which operates the plant
for the group of owners (listed at the top).
“We have worked very hard to demonstrate to
the NRC through extensive inspections and
audits that Palo Verde is prepared to operate
for an additional 20 years.”
The plant employs about 3,000 workers
and has an annual economic impact of more
than $1.8 billion in Arizona, according to
APS.
Rising Capacity Factors
Nuclear power plant capacity factors are ris-
ing across the industry. The Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) reported that the average ca-
pacity factor of all U.S. nuclear power plants
in June was 96.4%, the highest that it has
been in six years (it was 91.7% in 2014). In
fact, 90 of the 99 operating nuclear reactors
averaged 90% or higher, and 62 operated at
100% or higher in June.
According to Platts’ Megawatt Daily
June 22 report, in 2014, Palo Verde Unit 3
generated more electricity than any single
unit in the U.S., producing 12.2 million
MWh, exceeded only by EDF’s 1,560-MW
Chooz-B2 reactor in France for worldwide
honors. However, Palo Verde’s 1,312-MW
Unit 3 posted a higher annual capacity
factor of 97.5%, compared to 94.1% at
Chooz-B2.
Palo Verde Unit 3 continued the plant’s
history of outstanding operations by du-
plicating Unit 2’s achievement the year
before. In 2013, Unit 2 reported a 94.8%
capacity factor, the highest of all plants in
the world top 10 rankings, while Unit 1
was ranked third in the U.S. and seventh
in the world.
Generating large amounts of electricity
has been in the plant’s DNA since it began
operation. All three Palo Verde units are
individually ranked among the top six pro-
ducers in the U.S., according to industry
data. “We take pride in regularly generat-
The nearly 4-GW, three-unit PaloVerde Nuclear Generating Station remains the larg-
est generator of electricity in the U.S. for the 23rd consecutive year, producing more
than 30 million MWh in 2014, for the 10th time (the only plant in the U.S. to do so),
all while using only treated wastewater for cooling.
Dr. Robert Peltier, PE
Courtesy: Arizona Public Service
Owners/operator: Arizona Public Service Co. (APS, 29.1%), Salt River Project (17.5%), Southern
California Edison Co. (15.8%), El Paso Electric Co. (15.8%), PNM Resources (10.2%), Southern
California Public Power Authority (5.9%), and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
(5.7%) / APS

www.structint.com
ENGINEERING STRENGTH
Scan the QR Code for more information www.structint.com/power
( 8 7 7 - 4 S I - P O W E R )
8 7 7 - 4 7 4 - 7 6 9 3
Structural Integrity’s engineering strength comes in many forms -- from our team of over 200 engineering and technical
experts, to applying our knowledge at many power plants and pipelines in the industry, to 30+
years of experience
serving our clients.
You can also look to us in the following areas for our ability to link theory and practice:
• Knowledge of power plants, codes, and how things work.
• High quality, hard work, and responsiveness.
• Custom, integrated equipment, software and solutions.
Call us today to put our engineering strength to the test.
www.structint.com

TOP PLANTS
ing more electricity than any other power
plant in the country, ensuring that people
across Arizona and the Southwest can con-
tinue to enjoy reliable, low-cost electric-
ity,” said Edington.
For Palo Verde, 2014 was its 23rd con-
secutive year as the largest power generator
in the U.S., producing 32.3 million MWh
and breaking its own record of 31.9 mil-
lion MWh set in 2012. Palo Verde is the
only generating station of any technology
to produce 30 million MWh in a single
year, an achievement that it accomplished
in 2014 for the 10th time, and in six of the
past 10 years.
More Records
The Palo Verde staff is also well-practiced
in the art and science of conducting short
refueling outages and can turn around a unit
in record time. In the spring of 2013, the
staff completed its first sub-30 day refuel-
ing outage in plant history with a plant re-
cord-setting 29 days, 18 hours for Unit 1. In
spring 2014, the staff bettered that record by
refueling Unit 2 in 28 days, 22 hours. “This
refueling outage is another example of the
world-class performance we have come to
expect from Palo Verde, where safety re-
mains our highest priority,” Edington said.
At Palo Verde, the units are on an 18-month
refueling cycle, with two refuelings sched-
uled each year—one in the spring and an-
other in the fall.
In aggregate, the three units have been
running very well. From April 28 until Oct.
5, 2013, a period of 160 days, all three
units operated, the second-longest continu-
ous run in plant history. The long run ended
when Unit 3 was brought offline in order to
begin a planned refueling and maintenance
outage, although Units 1 and 2 continued
to operate at 100%. During 2012, Unit 2
recorded the best performance in plant his-
tory with 518 consecutive days of opera-
tion, ending Oct. 5, 2012. Each of the three
units has a recent continuous run exceeding
500 days.
Using RecycledWater
Palo Verde is the only U.S. nuclear power
plant that is not located next to an ocean or
other large body of water. It instead sits in
the middle of Arizona’s Sonoran Desert. Palo
Verde was the first nuclear power plant in the
world and remains the largest in the U.S. to
use recycled municipal wastewater for con-
denser and other plant cooling needs (Figure
1).
APS concluded a landmark 40-year
agreement in 2010 with the five cities in
the greater Phoenix metropolitan area to
provide an annual allotment of up to 26
billion gallons of treated municipal efflu-
ent to Palo Verde through 2050. The ter-
tiary treated effluent originates from the
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment plant in
west Phoenix and is piped to Palo Verde,
where it is further treated to meet the water
quality standards established by the plant.
The agreement was negotiated over sev-
eral years and replaces the original water
pact signed in 1973. Water deliveries un-
der terms of that agreement began in 1982,
when Unit 1 began operations, and was
scheduled to expire in 2027. “Palo Verde
provides substantial environmental ben-
efits since it does not emit any greenhouse
gases and because it makes the most effi-
cient use of our limited water resources,”
said Edington. The pact also solves a prob-
lem faced by many municipalities—how to
dispose of a potentially valuable byproduct
that increases as the population grows.
Grey water effluent provided to Palo Verde
is produced in three steps: solids removal,
primary treatment to remove any remain-
ing solids, and then secondary treatment in
which biological or percolating filters break
down organic material and purify the liquid.
The treated effluent flows 28 miles downhill
and then is pumped another 8 miles to the
plant site, where it enters the Palo Verde Wa-
ter Reclamation Facility. There the effluent
is further treated before it is stored in a 760
million-gallon lined reservoir that covers 80
surface acres.
The closed loop condenser/cooling tower
circuit uses water from this reservoir for
plant cooling. Three mechanical forced-draft
cooling towers are used for condenser cool-
ing, one for each unit. The towers operate at
25 cycles of concentration, which produces a
blowdown stream whose salinity approaches
that of seawater. Once this concentration is
reached, the water is discharged to evapora-
tion ponds. Because of the corrosive nature
of the effluent, the three-pressure, three-shell
surface condensers were originally upgraded
to titanium and the tube sheets are fabricated
out of aluminum bronze with mechanically
expanded tube joints. Mechanical scrapers
are used to keep the tubes clean. The Marley
condensers continue to provide reliable ser-
vice using tertiary treatment grey water after
almost 30 years of service. ■
—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE is POWER’s
consulting editor.
1. Water reuse.The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station uses 100% recycled municipal
wastewater from Phoenix and surrounding cities for condenser cooling. Shown are aeration
ponds that are part of the plant’s water reclamation and treatment facility. Courtesy: Arizona
Public Service
POWER POINTS
Winning Attributes
Only nuclear power plant in the
world to generate more than 30
million MWh in a year, and held
that record in 2014 for the 10th
time
Uses only treated wastewater for
all plant cooling, thereby saving
precious resources in its desert
surroundings
Refueling outages consistently
require fewer than 30 days

26461
Monday, December 7 • 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. • Mirage Las Vegas
powermagconference.com
Hosted by the editors of POWER magazine
Navigating Legal Implications of
Power Industry Regulations
PRESENTS
7:30-9:15 Continental breakfast and opening keynote
Avi S. Garbow, General
Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
9:15-10:30 The Compliance Context: Regulations &
Environmental Groups
10:45-12:00 The Clean Power Plan: Uncertain Future,
Certain Pain
12:00-1:00 Lunch and keynote
Robert Meyers, Senior Counsel,
Crowell & Moring; former head of
the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
1:30-3:30 Surviving the Environmental Compliance
Minefield: CCR, ELG, Ozone, 316(b), MATS 2.0,
& More
3:45-5:00 Networking reception
If you are involved in power plants’ financial, legal, or operational decisions
about compliance with environmental regulations, this is a conference for YOU.
Pre-register online at powermagconference.com.
YOU’RE INVITED
CONFERENCE AGENDA Among the notable
speakers, you’ll hear from:
» Counsel for one of the parties
in Massachusetts v. EPA, the
Supreme Court case that opened
the door to greenhouse gas
regulation by the Environmental
Protection Agency
» The former EPA attorney
who oversaw the agency’s
response to the court’s ruling in
Massachusetts v. EPA
» Experts in everything from
permitting to emissions trading
» Plus—the current EPA General
Counsel
These experts have represented
industry, regulatory bodies, and
citizen groups and are prepared
to share their insights on the
current bundle of regulatory
concerns.
You won’t find more energy and
environmental legal firepower
in one place anywhere else!

Wildlife and Power Plants: New
Solutions for Animal Problems
Some critters may be cute, but when jellyfish gum up power plant cooling sys-
tems; birds, rats, snakes, or squirrels cause electrical shorts; or invasive mol-
lusk species obstruct hydropower plant pipes, losses can be steep. Here’s
how some power plant operators are dealing with their critter troubles.
Aaron Larson and Sonal Patel
T
here are countless cases of wildlife
entering power plant areas where
they don’t belong. Unlike trained
workers, the animals can’t read warning
signs and often end up learning the hard
way about the danger lurking in high-
voltage systems. The result isn’t just bad
for the critter; it can be bad for the plant,
resulting in equipment damage and un-
planned outage time.
Not every power plant must deal with
the exact same pests. Pigeons, mice, rats,
and raccoons are fairly common throughout
North America, but other parts of the world
have other vermin. Snakes—some of which
are very dangerous—pose problems for some
plants, and even insects, such as termites and
carpenter ants, can cause significant damage
not just to buildings, but also inside panels
and equipment. It used to be that jellyfish
and mollusks were found mainly at plants
utilizing ocean water for cooling, but now
freshwater species have spread to many areas
throughout the U.S.
Keeping Unwanted Guests Out
Damage caused to electrical equipment as
the result of animal intrusion can cost a lot
to repair, not to mention the cost associated
with lost production. Karl Mosbacher, busi-
ness development manager for Roxtec Inc.’s
U.S. Power group, recalled one instance
where a squirrel caused $300,000 worth
of damage when it triggered a power surge
that affected an Indiana community center’s
heating and air conditioning system and
some parts of its boiler system. Rats and
mice are also regular troublemakers due to
their propensity for gnawing on cable and
wire insulation.
In order to prevent such damage, it is impor-
tant to seal building and equipment penetra-
tions to keep pests out. Mosbacher said some
materials, such as metal and concrete, are less
susceptible to infestation than others, but over
time, deterioration, inadequate alterations, and
poorly completed repairs can create openings,
allowing infiltration of unwanted pests.
A good understanding of pest behavior
and vulnerable areas is important. Mos-
bacher noted that some products and materi-
als commonly used to seal openings, such as
neoprene and spray-in foam, are not rodent-
proof. On the other hand, he said Roxtec’s
uniquely designed sealing solutions are ca-
pable of preventing a wide variety of pests
from entering facilities.
According to Mosbacher, the Roxtec seals
(Figure 1) not only protect against rodents
and pests, but also against water, gas, fire,
dust, electromagnetic interference, and ex-
plosion. They are adaptable to cables of dif-
ferent sizes, which simplifies maintenance
and upgrades.
Animals and power plant substations
don’t mix particularly well either. Raccoons,
squirrels, and even snakes can end up in ar-
eas where they shouldn’t be, triggering bad
outcomes for the utility, as well as for the
animal (Figure 2). In some cases, the result is
a simple conductor failure, but a strong flash-
over can result in shattered bushings or even
complete transformer meltdowns.
TE Connectivity is another company that
has developed a wide range of covers, iso-
lators, and insulation products designed to
protect systems from animals. The solutions
include bushing covers (Figure 3), conduc-
tor covers, squirrel guards (Figure 4), bus
1. Sealing out trouble. These seals, installed at a facility in Mexico, prevent rodents,
water, and other hazards from entering buildings through cable and pipe penetrations. Courtesy:
Roxtec Inc.

support covers, raptor covers, and heat-
shrink tubes and tapes. The company esti-
mates that the overall risk factor can be cut
as much as 80% by incorporating its mitiga-
tion products.
Feathered Friends?
Pigeons are a fairly common pest at power
plants. They may seem like more of a nui-
sance, but these birds are not as innocent as
they may appear. It’s no secret that harbor-
ing a flock of pigeons will create a house-
keeping problem, but Erick Wolf, CEO of
Innolytics LLC, believes that pigeons are
also a safety risk.
Bird feces can create slip and fall hazards
on concrete walkways and steel deck grating.
In addition, the birds can spook personnel
who may not be expecting them when transit-
ing through areas where the birds have taken
refuge. The surprise could result in a fall or
the ill-advised placement of a hand on a piece
of equipment.
There are also some health risks. Accord-
ing to NewYork City’s Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene—which sees its fair
share of pigeon problems—three human dis-
eases are known to be associated with pigeon
droppings: histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis,
and psittacosis. People with compromised
immune systems are most at risk from expo-
sure to droppings, but anyone cleaning up af-
ter pigeons should wear protective clothing,
such as disposable coveralls, boots, gloves,
and respirators.
Netting, bird spikes, electrical track or
wire systems, flight diverters, guards, and au-
dio and visual repellents are available for bird
control through a variety of companies such
as Bird B Gone, Bird-X, and BirdBusters.
Jack Wagner, president of BirdBusters, said
that there are more than 80 of his company’s
Bird Wailers installed in electrical substa-
tions throughout Alberta alone. The units
incorporate up to 34 natural sounds, such as
target bird alarm and distress calls, together
with the calls of predators like hawks, owls,
and others indigenous to the area. In Alberta,
a master unit and two speakers at each site
have been effective in controlling ravens for
more than 15 years.
Birth Control
When it comes to pigeons, Wolf said it is
very hard to completely rid a site of the birds.
He suggested that the cost to do so is usually
a limiting factor.
“The closer you get to zero, the more it
costs,” Wolf said. “Cost is one thing, but na-
ture abhors a vacuum, so driving things to
zero is not necessarily a good thing.”
In other words, once you eliminate a flock,
the site may remain free of pigeons for a pe-
riod of time, but eventually a new flock will
move in. Wolf said the birds are in search
of three things: food/water, harborage, and
warmth. Power plants are a prime location
for at least two of those items.
In addition to the options offered by
BirdBusters and others, Innolytics created a
product called OvoControl for gaining con-
trol of a plant’s pigeon population. For lack
of a better term, OvoControl is birth control
for pigeons.
Pigeons are sexually mature at six
months of age. The birds have two eggs per
clutch and up to six clutches per year, so
it is a rapidly reproducing species. Pigeons
typically only live for two to three years,
however, so the use of contraceptive tech-
nology is an effective control measure, ac-
2. Raccoons can’t read warning signs.This little critter crossed some wires that it
shouldn’t have. Courtesy: TE Connectivity
3. You’re covered. Bushing and conductor covers can prevent animals and others from
touching things they shouldn’t. Courtesy: TE Connectivity

2015 11 Power Magazine

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (18)

Ähnlich wie 2015 11 Power Magazine

Ähnlich wie 2015 11 Power Magazine (20)

Mehr von Luiz Carlos Martinelli Júnior

Mehr von Luiz Carlos Martinelli Júnior (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

2015 11 Power Magazine