Heat Recovery Steam Generator Oxygen Injection:

Case Study for Corrosion Reduction

3002006355
Heat Recovery Steam Generator Oxygen Injection:
Case Study for Corrosion Reduction

3002006355
Technical Update, April 2015

EPRI Project Manager

M. Caravaggio

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK
SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS
TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (EPRI) PREPARED THIS REPORT.

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE FUTURE OF

ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) prepared this report.
Principal Investigator
M. Caravaggio
This report describes work performed at American Electric Power’s Stall Plant. The case study
describes the work and effort of the J. Lamar Stall Plant staff. The following Stall Plant
personnel have led this effort and have been awarded a 2014 EPRI Technology Transfer Award
for this work:
Jordan Cupples
Phillip Dees
Frank “Buck” Whitehead

This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Heat Recovery Steam Generator Oxygen Injection: Case Study for Corrosion Reduction. EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2015. 3002006355.
iii
 ABSTRACT
Routine corrosion-product monitoring at American Electric Power’s (AEP’s) Stall combined-
cycle plant indicated high levels of iron corrosion in the feedwater. This was seen both in routine
Millipore filter testing and with total iron analysis by AEP’s Dolan laboratory. This high
corrosion rate was also indicated by the buildup of corrosion product on sample flow meters and
in the cycle chemistry sample conditioning system sink.
Based on Electric Power Research Institute research summarized in the latest heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG) chemistry guidelines (3002001381), Comprehensive Cycle Chemistry
Guidelines for Combined Cycle/Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs), the plant staff
recognized that the corrosion was associated with insufficient dissolved oxygen in the feedwater
downstream of the plant’s feed-forward low-pressure (FFLP) drums in its triple-pressure
HRSGs. The team decided to address the problem by injecting oxygen into the feedwater as
recommended in the report.
An oxygen injection system was designed and installed, and optimum flow rates and levels of
dissolved oxygen were determined by the plant staff. Results indicated an arresting of corrosion-
product transport and single-phase flow-accelerated corrosion.
Because of this success, AEP is proceeding to arrange for the remaining HRSG units in the fleet
to inject oxygen or air into the feedwater cycle. The innovation and the successful application of
this system were presented at the 2014 AEP Boiler Reliability Optimization Technical Forum.
This report summarizes the issue of iron corrosion downstream of FFLP drums in HRSGs and
uses Stall Plant as a typical case study of the corrosion control improvements that can be realized
through the application of oxygen injection.
Keywords
Combined-cycle plant chemistry
Corrosion and accelerated corrosion
Feedwater treatment
Oxidizing all-volatile treatment (AVT(O))
Oxygenated treatment (OT)

v
 CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background Science: Feedwater Iron Corrosion ...................................................... 1-1
1.2 Iron Corrosion Control—HRSG with FFLP ............................................................... 1-5
2 AEP STALL PLANT ............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Basic Plant Information ............................................................................................ 2-1
2.1.1 Chemistry Pre-Oxygen Injection ......................................................................... 2-1
3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN INJECTION SYSTEM ....................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Stall Plant Dissolved Oxygen Injection ..................................................................... 3-1
4 CORROSION REDUCTION ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Feedwater Corrosion Results ................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 4-3
4.2.1 Oxygen Addition Downstream of an FFLP ......................................................... 4-4
5 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 The solubility of magnetite as a function of temperature at various ammonia
concentrations ...................................................................................................................... 1-2
Figure 1-2 The solubility of ferric hydrate-oxides at 0.5 ppm NH4OH, compared with Fe3O4
solubility ............................................................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 1-3 Relative corrosion-product transport as a function of cation conductivity ................. 1-3
Figure 1-4 The influence of oxygen on flow-accelerated corrosion and electrochemical
potential, at 239°F (115°C) with pH 9.1, and 302°F (150°C) with pH 7.8 ............................ 1-4
Figure 1-5 Oxygen concentration required to inhibit flow-accelerated corrosion at 302°F
(150°C) ................................................................................................................................. 1-5
Figure 1-6 A combustion-turbine combined-cycle unit triple-pressure drum HRSG with an
FFLP drum and reheat steam .............................................................................................. 1-6
Figure 2-1 Stall Plant one-week chemistry trends—in (condensate) and out (boiler feed
pump [BFP])— of FFLP ........................................................................................................ 2-2
Figure 2-2 Stall Plant pre-oxygen injection with condensate and feedwater (after FFLP) ......... 2-3
Figure 2-3 Stall Plant pre-oxygen injection—feedwater Millipore (after FFLP)—showing slight
coloration from particulate iron transport.............................................................................. 2-4
Figure 3-1 A schematic of Stall Plant oxygen injection system .................................................. 3-1
Figure 3-2 Stall Plant oxygen injection system .......................................................................... 3-2
Figure 4-1 Stall Plant HRSG’s last 90° bend prior to feedwater pump suction .......................... 4-1
Figure 4-2 IP feedwater flowing sample ..................................................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-3 IP feedwater sample cups, dried .............................................................................. 4-2
Figure 4-4 A flow diagram for oxygen supply ............................................................................. 4-5
Figure 4-5 Typical injector details .............................................................................................. 4-6

ix
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Typical Stall Plant chemistry ...................................................................................... 2-5
Table 4-1 Iron corrosion-product transport results ..................................................................... 4-3
Table 4-2 Typical oxygen usage rates in OT ............................................................................. 4-5

xi
1
INTRODUCTION
This case study covers American Electric Power’s (AEP’s) use of an innovative approach, as
recommended by the Electric Power Research Institute in its latest heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG) chemistry guidelines (3002001381), Comprehensive Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for
Combined Cycle/Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs) [1], to reduce corrosion-product
transport in the feedwater of an HRSG. The approach, which was used in the United States for
the first time, involved the injection of oxygen into the HRSG feedwater immediately
downstream of a feed-forward low-pressure (FFLP) drum, to arrest corrosion-product transport
and eliminate the risk of single-phase flow-accelerated corrosion in the intermediate-pressure
(IP) and high-pressure (HP) economizer sections of a triple-pressure HRSG.

1.1 Background Science: Feedwater Iron Corrosion

Iron corrosion in feedwater of power plants operating with high purity makeup is controlled by
the solubility of the iron oxides formed. Under reducing conditions or low oxygen conditions
(<5 parts per billion [ppb]), the dominant oxide formed at higher temperatures is magnetite
(Fe3O4), and under oxidizing conditions or high oxygen conditions (>30 ppb), the dominant
oxide is hematite (Fe2O3). Intermediate mixed oxides will tend to form between these oxygen
values when reducing agents are not used.
Figure 1-1 shows the typical operating temperature range for a triple-pressure HRSG in
relationship to magnetite solubility at varying ammonia concentrations. Figure 1-1 uses the
following general pressures for evaporators and economizers:
 HP: >1000 psi (6.9 MPa)
 IP: 200–1000 psi (1.4–6.9 MPa)
 Low pressure (LP): <200 psi (1.4 MPa)

1-1
Figure 1-1
The solubility of magnetite as a function of temperature at various ammonia concentrations [3]

Figure 1-2 shows the solubility of ferric hydrate-oxides that form under higher oxygen conditions
(from ferric hydroxide [Fe(OH)3], which is favored at lower temperatures, to hematite [Fe2O3],
which is favored at higher temperatures). Figure 1-2 includes the data from Figure 1-1 as an inset
and shows the vast difference in oxide solubility between magnetite and the oxides formed under
more oxidizing conditions, especially at higher temperatures where hematite forms.

1-2
Figure 1-2
The solubility of ferric hydrate-oxides at 0.5 ppm NH4OH, compared with Fe3O4 solubility
(extracted from Figure 1-1) [4]

The positively correlated relationship between iron oxide solubility and iron corrosion rates is
very strong in the absence of impurities. When impurities are present, the rate of iron corrosion is
not correlated with iron oxide solubility, because the impurities interfere with the formation of a
passive iron oxide layer. This is illustrated in Figure 1-3, which shows the rate of iron corrosion-
product release under oxygenated treatment (OT) conditions for feedwater as a function of
increasing impurities (as measured by cation conductivity).

Figure 1-3
Relative corrosion-product transport as a function of cation conductivity [5]

1-3
Under all-ferrous metallurgies, it is always preferable to avoid a reducing chemistry even when
impurity levels cannot be maintained low enough to allow for true OT. This intermediate
feedwater treatment is referred to as oxidizing all-volatile treatment (AVT(O)), where the pH is
maintained above 9 (generally, higher pH values are preferred, up to a maximum typically of 10)
and a small residual of oxygen is maintained in the feedwater (5–10 ppb). The small oxygen
residual helps reduce the potential for single-phase flow-accelerated corrosion, as illustrated in
Figure 1-4. When oxygen is increased, the rate of wall loss caused by flow-accelerated corrosion
drops to essentially zero. The exact amount of oxygen required to stifle single-phase flow-
accelerated corrosion is dependent upon the mass transfer of oxygen, as depicted in Figure 1-5.
In practical power plant applications, the mass transfer of oxygen in pipework is difficult to
determine, and, as such, the amount of oxygen required to stifle flow-accelerated corrosion is
determined through corrosion-product transport optimizations (see section 3 of EPRI report
3002001381 [1]).

Figure 1-4
The influence of oxygen on flow-accelerated corrosion and electrochemical potential, at 239°F
(115°C) with pH 9.1, left, and 302°F (150°C) with pH 7.8, right [6]

1-4
Key:
Solid symbols = flow-accelerated corrosion inhibited
Open symbols = flow-accelerated corrosion unaffected
Half-open symbols = flow-accelerated corrosion slowed or long-term inhibition
Figure 1-5
Oxygen concentration required to inhibit flow-accelerated corrosion at 302°F (150°C) [6]

For a deeper discussion of iron corrosion control, see EPRI reports 3002001381 (Comprehensive
Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Combined Cycle/Heat Recovery Steam Generators [HRSGs])
and 1021767 (Comprehensive Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants) [1, 2].

1.2 Iron Corrosion Control—HRSG with FFLP

Figure 1-6 illustrates a typical triple-pressure HRSG steam/water cycle with an FFLP. It should
be noted that this diagram does not represent exactly any operating unit. It is illustrative only for
use in the chemistry cycle diagrams for drum units in this report.

1-5
Figure 1-6
A combustion-turbine combined-cycle unit triple-pressure drum HRSG with an FFLP drum and
reheat steam [1]

This configuration causes two unique corrosion problems. The first is that only a volatile
alkalizing agent (for example, ammonia) can be used in the LP evaporator because the water
from the LP drum is used as the feedwater for the IP and HP evaporators. Only a volatile
alkalizing agent can be used in this case because the feedwater is also used for steam
attemperation sprays; the use of solid alkali then would result in deposits in the steam path that
could lead to superheater/reheater tubing failures or potentially a catastrophic turbine failure
resulting from stress corrosion cracking. The use of only a volatile alkalizing agent in an LP
evaporator can lead to corrosion issues because the LP evaporator will deoxygenate the
evaporator water and reduce the pH in the evaporator water because of losses of the volatile
alkalizing agent to the LP steam that has been generated. The deoxygenation results in the LP
evaporator favoring the formation of magnetite, while the loss of the volatile alkalizing agent
results in a lower liquid pH. The end result is higher iron solubility, according to Figure 1-1.
This first problem is covered in more detail in the HRSG chemistry guidelines [1] and is not
addressed by the injection of oxygen downstream of the FFLP. The second corrosion problem
created by an FFLP is related to the first—that is, the deoxygenation and reduction of pH—but
impacts the feedwater piping downstream of the FFLP, the IP economizer, and the HP
economizer. The iron corrosion risk in these components and piping is increased. The addition of
oxygen downstream of the FFLP can help address this risk by shifting the oxide formed from
black magnetite, with a relatively high solubility, to red hematite, with low solubility.

1-6
2
AEP STALL PLANT
2.1 Basic Plant Information
Southwestern Electric Power Company’s J. Lamar Stall Unit at Arsenal Hill is a 508-MW
combined-cycle natural gas unit, which began commercial operation in June 2010.
Plant details are as follows:
 Location: Louisiana
 Operator: Southwestern Electric Power Company
 Configuration, as follows:
- 508 MW (total)
- Two-on-one combined-cycle gas turbine plant
- Two Siemens W501FD2 gas turbines (each ~150 MW)
 Year that operation began: 2010
 Fuel: natural gas
 HRSG supplier: Nooter/Ericksen triple-pressure HRSGs with FFLP drum
 Maximum working drum pressures, as follows:
- LP: 100 psig (0.69 MPa)
- IP: 455 psig (3.14 MPa)
- HP: 1755 psig (12.10 MPa)
 LP circuit chemical treatment: AVT(O) (IP and HP circuits are caustic treatment; ammonia
injection in the condensate)
Drum blowdowns are cascading drains. Continuous blowdown is typically open 10%– 25%,
intermittent blowdown typically closed for IP and HP drums. (Note: no blowdown from the LP
drum.) The blowdown design flow rates are 4305 lb/h (1952 kg/h) for HP and 654 lb/h (297 kg/h)
for IP.
2.1.1 Chemistry Pre-Oxygen Injection
Figure 2-1 shows a typical week of chemistry data in the condensate and across the FFLP for
dissolved oxygen and pH (as calculated based on specific and cation conductivity into and out of
the FFLP). The trend clearly shows the chemistry issues covered in Section 1.2 of this report, the
complete deoxygenation of the feedwater out of the FFLP and the reduction of the pH resulting
from the loss of ammonia to the FFLP steam.

2-1
 120

Dissolved Oxygen (ppb) 100

80

60

40

20

0
2/15/2013 2/16/2013 2/17/2013 2/18/2013 2/19/2013 2/20/2013 2/21/2013 2/22/2013

Condensate After Chem Feed DO (ppb) 6A BFP Discharge DO (ppb) 6B BFP Discharge DO (ppb)

9.35
pH (based on Specific and Cation

9.30
Conductivity)

9.25

9.20

9.15

9.10
2/15/2013 2/16/2013 2/17/2013 2/18/2013 2/19/2013 2/20/2013 2/21/2013 2/22/2013

Calculated pH Condensate Calculated 6A BFP pH Calculated 6B BFP pH

6.00
Specific Conductivity (μS/cm)

5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00
2/15/2013 2/16/2013 2/17/2013 2/18/2013 2/19/2013 2/20/2013 2/21/2013 2/22/2013

Condensate After Chem Feed Specific Conductivity 6A BFP Discharge Specific Conductivity
6B BFP Discharge Specific Conductivity

Figure 2-1
Stall Plant one-week chemistry trends—in (condensate) and out (boiler feed pump [BFP])—
of FFLP

2-2
This resulted in a significant increase in corrosion-product transport measured on the feedwater
versus the condensate, as illustrated by the sample cups under continuous flow shown in
Figure 2-2. An example feedwater Millipore filter showing the typical coloration from particulate
iron transport is shown in Figure 2-3. The filter should not show any coloration under optimized
corrosion control.

Figure 2-2
Stall Plant pre-oxygen injection with condensate on the left and feedwater (after FFLP) on the right

2-3
Figure 2-3
Stall Plant pre-oxygen injection—feedwater Millipore (after FFLP)—showing slight coloration from
particulate iron transport

2-4
Table 2-1 provides typical Stall Plant chemistry at various sample points prior to the conversion.
Table 2-1
Typical Stall Plant chemistry

Sample Parameter Typical Value

pH 9.2–9.4
Specific conductivity 4–6 μS/cm
Condensate before
Cation conductivity <0.15 μS/cm
chemical feed
Sodium <0.1 ppb
Dissolved oxygen 20-40 ppb
pH 9.3–9.5
Specific conductivity 4–6.5 μS/cm
Condensate after
Cation conductivity <0.15 μS/cm
chemical feed
Sodium <0.1 ppb
Dissolved oxygen 20-40 ppb
pH 9.1 –9.3
Specific conductivity 3.5–6 μS/cm
BFP discharge
Cation conductivity <0.10 μS/cm
Dissolved oxygen ~0 ppb
pH 9.4–9.7
Specific conductivity 12–20 μS/cm
IP drum water
HP /
Chloride (calculated) × = 330460 ppb
IP /

IP saturated steam Cation conductivity <0.10 μS/cm

pH 9.4–9.5
Specific conductivity 6–9 μS/cm
HP drum
Chlorides 50–70 ppb
Silica 40 ppb
Cation conductivity <0.10 μS/cm
HP saturated steam
Sodium <0.1 ppb
Cation conductivity <0.10 μS/cm
Hot reheat steam Sodium <1 ppb
Silica 4 ppb

2-5
3
DISSOLVED OXYGEN INJECTION SYSTEM
3.1 Stall Plant Dissolved Oxygen Injection
Stall Plant staff designed a simple low-cost oxygen addition, as shown in Figure 3-1. The system
added oxygen immediately downstream of the FFLP drum to the feedwater (originally to just one
of the two HRSGs). The system is a manual addition system with no control logic, and the
pressure regulator and flow control manual rotameter are shown in Figure 3-2. The plant set the
manual addition to attain dissolved oxygen in the feedwater (measured at the BFP) at between
30 and 80 ppb.

1 in. = 2.54 cm
Figure 3-1
A schematic of Stall Plant oxygen injection system (manual adjustment system)

3-1
Figure 3-2
Stall Plant oxygen injection system (manual adjustment system)

3-2
4
CORROSION REDUCTION
4.1 Feedwater Corrosion Results
Figure 4-1 illustrates inspection results from the BFP suction line prior to oxygen injection and
after seven months of oxygen injection. The inspection photo prior to oxygen injection clearly
shows the presence of black magnetite oxide with what appears to be flow-accelerated corrosion
damage. The inspection photo after seven months of oxygen injection shows the presence of red
hematite oxide covering the entire visible pipe internal surface.

Figure 4-1
Stall Plant HRSG’s last 90° bend prior to feedwater pump suction (left, prior to oxygen injection;
right, seven months after initiating the oxygen injection)

Figures 4-2 and 4-3 illustrate the dramatic change in appearance of sample coming from the
feedwater after the oxygen injection conversion. Gone is the orange iron staining from
continuous iron corrosion-product transport. The photos after conversion are following several
months of operation. Millipore irons similarly improved, showing minimal or no staining.

4-1
Figure 4-2
IP feedwater flowing sample (left, before oxygen injection conversion; right, after oxygen injection
conversion)

Figure 4-3
IP feedwater sample cups, dried (left, before oxygen injection conversion; right, after oxygen
injection conversion)

4-2
Table 4-1 illustrates the reduction in dissolved and particulate iron with oxygen injection and
without. The dissolved iron data are for the 6B IP feedwater prior to and after the oxygen
injection conversion. The particulate data compare the 6A and 6B IP feedwater after the 6B
oxygen addition has been added (6A was operating without oxygen addition).
Table 4-1
Iron corrosion-product transport results

Dissolved Iron: Results in μg/L (ppb)

Sample ID 2013, prior to O injection 3 months after O injection
6B feedwater 2.1 <0.5
Total Iron: Results in μg/L (ppb)
Sample ID HRSG 6A, no O injection HRSG 6B, with O Injection
IP feedwater 4 <0.5

4.2 Discussion

The addition of oxygen downstream of the FFLP clearly improved feedwater iron corrosion
control. It is noteworthy that the feedwater iron values from Millipore testing did not show as
dramatic a change as the sample cups/tubing and the inspection photos (although the change was
still noteworthy). This can often be the case, and the plant chemistry staff must never rely on a
single measure (for example, iron corrosion-product transport results) to assess corrosion control.
These data need to be validated or tested by inspection results and the long-term appearance of
sample panel/sink. The sample panel/sink provides a qualitative assessment of the overall
corrosion control program. Black magnetite deposits in tubing and orange staining in the
sink/sample cups are indications of a system that is likely not optimized. The inspection results
are proof positive of whether the corrosion control program is working for the inspected area.
Good iron corrosion-product transport results when the sample panel or inspections tell a
different story are an indication that the program for iron corrosion-product transport monitoring
is not telling the whole story.
For Stall Plant, clearly, the oxygen level applied is appropriate for feedwater iron corrosion
control; however, whenever oxygen is applied, one must be aware to monitor against the
combined presence of elevated levels of contaminants and oxygen. At Stall Plant, there is little
risk of this in the feedwater with typical cation conductivity <0.1 μS/cm (see Table 2-1).
However, there is some risk in HP and IP evaporators. Within the evaporator tubing, chloride
(and other nonvolatile contamination) will concentrate. This contamination in the combined
presence of oxygen can lead to accelerated corrosion rates. In OT in conventional subcritical
power plants [2], a downcomer sample is typically used to assess the level of oxygen in the water
wall tubing. (Note: A drum sample will not be representative because it will have higher
deaeration than that in the downcomer sample.) The conservative limit is <10 ppb. If the oxygen
in the downcomer is less than this value, there is no possibility of oxygen accelerating corrosion
reactions that are associated with the concentrating nonvolatile contaminants in the boiler water.
In conventional fossil boilers, the feedwater dissolved oxygen is adjusted so that the boiler
downcomer has a dissolved oxygen concentration less than 10 ppb. This typically results in
oxygen values of 30–50 ppb at the economizer inlet.

4-3
At most HRSG plants, Stall Plant included, a downcomer sample from the IP and HP
evaporators is not available; therefore, it is not possible to have an exact knowledge of the
oxygen within the evaporator tubing and whether in the current operation the conservative
<10-ppb target is being achieved. As such, plants applying post-FFLP oxygen injection are
recommended to tune the oxygen level down to the lowest range necessary to achieve the
minimum feedwater iron corrosion-product transport to minimize the potential for elevated
oxygen in the evaporator tubing. In the case of Stall Plant, the risk of accelerated corrosion
appears low because the feedwater dissolved oxygen is operating near the typical safe range for
conventional boilers and the HP drum chloride and calculated IP drum chloride typical values
(see Table 2-1) are low for caustic treatment. Plants applying post-FFLP oxygen injection are
also advised to set contaminant limits for shutting off oxygen injection during an upset (such as a
condenser leak). This can be based on the feedwater cation conductivity or HP evaporator
chloride or cation conductivity values. Exact values for where these limits need to be are likely
to be plant specific based on the exact chemical constituents contributing to the cation
conductivity; however, the general guidance would be to stop the oxygen feed if in EPRI Action
Level 1 or above for any of these parameters [1].
4.2.1 Oxygen Addition Downstream of an FFLP
The retrofit of an oxygen feed point for the condensate system and/or downstream of the FFLP
can be done using equipment that is similar to what is applied for OT, noting that the oxygen
addition requirements will be much lower, and, typically, a storage system consisting of oxygen
cylinders—as was done at Stall Plant—is sufficient. For an FFLP, the oxygen injection point
preferably should be as close to the outlet from the FFLP as possible to minimize the potential
for flow-accelerated corrosion in this piping and, at a minimum, should be upstream of the IP/HP
feedwater pump.
The oxygen feed equipment consists of three subsystems: storage equipment, control equipment,
and injection equipment. The oxygen feed equipment is shown schematically in Figure 4-4.

4-4
Figure 4-4
A flow diagram for oxygen supply

There are several alternatives for oxygen storage equipment. The preferred selection from these
alternatives depends upon unit size and layout. Oxygen consumption is a function of feedwater
flow rates and the targeted oxygen residual. Oxygen that is not used within the cycle for
passivation and oxidation of metal surfaces is extracted in the condenser. Therefore, essentially
all oxygen fed is consumed or lost and does not return to the feedwater train, assuming proper
condenser air removal system effectiveness.
Gas turbine load and duct firing impact steam flow and, therefore, oxygen feed rate. Oxygen
storage requirements should be determined based upon unit capability and expected unit load.
For combined-cycle plants, oxygen cylinders can be adequate. Standard oxygen cylinders are
9 in. (22.8 cm) in diameter and 50 in. (127.0 cm) tall, are pressurized to 2200 psi (15 MPa), and
contain about 250 standard ft3 (7 standard m3) or about 20 lb (9 kg).
Oxygen consumption or usage, to achieve a concentration of 10 ppb, is 0.12 lb/day (0.054 kg/day)
per 63 kg/s (102 kilo-pounds per hour [KPPH]) of condensate or feedwater flow. Table 4-2
provides oxygen consumption rates for two feedwater flow rates.
Table 4-2
Typical oxygen usage rates in OT

IP/HP Feedwater Flow Rate Oxygen Usage Number of

kg/s (KPPH) kg/day (lb/day) Cylinders per Month
176 (1,397) 0.15 (0.33) 0.5
428 (3,397) 0.37 (0.82) ~1

4-5
As can be seen, for combined-cycle plants applying AVT(O) oxygen consumption is rather
modest and can easily be accomplished with cylinders. Cylinders can be connected together as a
manifold to increase capacity, and automatic switching can also be arranged.
Control equipment consists of a pressure regulator, shutoff valves, a rotameter, and control
valves. A backpressure valve might also be desirable. Pressure regulators should be set for
pressures higher than the highest feed point pressure that would be experienced. This higher
pressure setpoint will minimize the potential for backfilling of the oxygen cylinder with water.
International experience with OT indicates that either feed through an injection nozzle or feed to a
normal piping connection is acceptable. For AVT(O) HRSG applications, a similar configuration
for oxygen addition is recommended. Figure 4-5 shows typical details for injection nozzles.

1 in. = 2.54 cm
Figure 4-5
Typical injector details

4-6
In the majority of plants worldwide on OT, oxygen feed systems use manual rate control
systems; however, for AVT(O) HRSG plants with highly variable operation, an automatic rate
control might be preferable. In manual systems, oxygen feed rates are controlled through manual
positioning of a needle valve (as was done at Stall Plant). In automatic rate control systems, the
rate control can be achieved by proportioning feed flow with feedwater flow. Improved control is
expected to be achieved by biasing the flow proportioning signal with a feedback signal from a
dissolved oxygen analyzer. It should be an individual utility choice as to whether this level of
automation is desired. However, as stated previously, because of the variable operation of most
combined-cycle plants, it is presumed that automatic control would be preferable for AVT(O)
oxygen injection. The choice should be based upon expected unit load range, cost of automation,
and operating staff preferences.
These systems usually incorporate an interlock to shut off the oxygen feed when oxygen exceeds
a preselected setpoint and an interlock to also shut off oxygen feed when load is reduced below a
preselected setpoint and when shutting the unit down. This low-load shutoff setpoint should be
below the unit’s normal minimum load operating range. These two interlocks are suggested for
manual and automatic rate control systems. For the manual rate control oxygen feed system, the
interlocks should close the shutoff valve in the individual oxygen feed systems. An additional
oxygen shutoff for high cation conductivity values can also be incorporated.

4-7
5
CONCLUSION
AEP is proceeding to arrange for the remaining HRSG units in the fleet to inject oxygen or air
into the feedwater cycle.
The following conclusions are relevant for AEP and other utilities looking to inject oxygen
downstream of an FFLP:
 Stall Plant was able to dramatically reduce feedwater iron corrosion rates through the
application of oxygen after the FFLP.
 The results from Stall Plant conformed to the established understanding of corrosion in the
feedwater piping/economizer(s) downstream of an FFLP presented in the EPRI HRSG
chemistry guidelines [1] and provide validation of the approach proposed in the report to
arrest the damage mechanism.
 Plants applying oxygen downstream of an FFLP need to be aware of the potential risk of
evaporator tubing corrosion in the combined presence of oxygen and concentrating
nonvolatile contaminants (primarily chloride and sulfate). The precautionary steps covered in
Section 4.2 of this report should be taken to minimize the potential for this to occur (that is,
shut off oxygen injection when elevated contaminants are detected and apply oxygen only to
the minimum value required to arrest feedwater/economizer iron corrosion).

5-1
6
REFERENCES
1. Comprehensive Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Combined Cycle/Heat Recovery Steam
Generators (HRSGs). EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2013. 3002001381.
2. Comprehensive Cycle Chemistry Guidelines for Fossil Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2011.
1021767.
3. P. Sturla. “Oxidation and Deposition Phenomena in Forced Circulating Boilers and
Feedwater Treatment.” Fifth National Feedwater Conference. Prague, 1973 (in French).
4. P. Sturla. “Iron Oxides in Thermoelectric Cycles Theoretical Aspects and Their Possible
Influence on Service.” Paper presented at 1985 EPRI symposium, Fossil Plant Water
Chemistry Symposium. 1986. CS-4950, pp. 22-1 through 22-22.
5. Third International Conference on Improved Coal-Fired Power Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 1992. 100848.
6. I. S. Woolsey, G. J. Bignold, C. H. DeWhalley, and K. Garbett. “The Influence of Oxygen
and Hydrazine on the Erosion-Corrosion Behaviour and Electrochemical Potentials of
Carbon Steel Under Boiler Feedwater Conditions,” Proc. Water Chemistry for Nuclear
Reactor Systems, 4, BNES, London: 1986.

6-1
Export Control Restrictions
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted
with the specific understanding and requirement that
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being
undertaken by you and your company. This includes an
obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access
hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S.
resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and
foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain
access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge
that it is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal
counsel to determine whether this access is lawful.
Although EPRI may make available on a case-by-case
basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and
your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes.
You and your company acknowledge that it is still the
obligation of you and your company to make your own
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company
understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a
prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities
regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property
hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.
The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
(EPRI, www.epri.com) conducts research and
development relating to the generation, delivery
and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An
independent, nonprofit organization, EPRI brings
together its scientists and engineers as well as
experts from academia and industry to help
address challenges in electricity, including
reliability, efficiency, affordability, health, safety and
the environment. EPRI also provides technology,
policy and economic analyses to drive long-range
research and development planning, and supports
research in emerging technologies. EPRI’s
members represent approximately 90 percent of the
electricity generated and delivered in the United
States, and international participation extends to
more than 30 countries. EPRI’s principal offices and
laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.;
Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

© 2015 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHERSHAPING THE
FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
3002006355

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com