Compilation of Results and Feedback

Regarding Feedwater Heater Replacements

at Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants

1019583

11464173
11464173
 Compilation of Results and Feedback
Regarding Feedwater Heater Replacements
at Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants

1019583

Technical Update, August 2009

EPRI Project Manager

S. J. Korellis

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
11464173800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) 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(S) 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.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

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 © 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

11464173
 CITATIONS
This document was prepared by

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

1300 W.T. Harris Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28262

Principal Investigator
S.J. Korellis

This document describes research sponsored by EPRI.

This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Compilation of Results and Feedback Regarding Feedwater Heater Replacements at Fossil and
Nuclear Power Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009. 1019583.

11464173 iii
11464173
 REPORT SUMMARY
Through an electronic survey feedback was obtained on the experience of EPRI members with
the physical replacement and upgrading of feedwater heaters in nuclear and fossil power plants,
including the scope, objectives, and results of these upgrades. This report compiles these data
and draws a number of conclusions and lessons learned to assist other utilities and electric
generating companies anticipating feedwater heater replacements or upgrades at their sites.

Background
Over the past 10-15 years, an increased number of nuclear and fossil power plants have
undertaken plant modifications to extend the life, enhance the reliability, and/or improve the heat
rate of selected units. Many of these actions have included physical upgrades or replacements to
the units’ feedwater heaters, as well as enhancements to other components. Over this time, EPRI
has undertaken several studies to collect data concerning feedwater heater replacements or
upgrades, but the data from these efforts did not attempt to quantify the replacement criteria or
determine how effectively each replacement met owner expectations. This project compiled
historic data and current results of heater replacements to produce a single technical report
summarizing the findings.

Objectives
To provide the results obtained through a survey of EPRI members on physical replacements and
upgrades of feedwater heaters at nuclear and fossil power plants.

Approach
In cooperation with interested EPRI members from both nuclear and fossil power plants, the
project team brought together a task group of utility engineers and industry experts to develop a
comprehensive survey of experience with the replacement and upgrading of feedwater heaters.
Through an electronic survey that asked a series of specific and focused questions, feedback was
obtained regarding the scope, objective, and results of each respondent’s upgrades. Some of the
respondents were contacted later to augment the information initially submitted. With continuing
input from the task group, the project team used this data to identify and compile experience-
proven practices and techniques associated with feedwater heater modifications and provide
guidance on implementing feedwater heater modification. Development of the report was closely
coordinated and reviewed to ensure consistency with current industry-wide guidance and lessons
learned.

Results
A total of 44 responses are discussed in detail in this report. The responses were comprised of
responses from 27 fossil power plants and 17 nuclear power plants, and the data represents
experience of approximately 300 heater replacements. The responses provided a source of data
from which numerous conclusions and lessons learned were documented.

EPRI Perspective
The information contained in this guideline represents a significant collection of information,
including techniques and good practices, related to issues associated with feedwater heater
replacements and upgrades at fossil and nuclear power plants. This information provides a single
point of reference for plant engineering and management personnel, both in the present and in

11464173 v
the future. Through the use of this guideline, which was developed in close conjunction with
industry guidance, EPRI members should be able to significantly improve and consistently
implement the processes associated with feedwater heater modifications, thus helping them
achieve increased reliability and availability.

Keywords
Feedwater heater
Feedwater system
Heat exchangers
Power uprate
Heat rate
Heat reduction
Thermal efficiency
Reliability

11464173 vi
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EPRI would like to thank the following individuals who made significant contributions through
their participation in the survey, including its preparation, and review of this report. Their
valuable insight and experience was essential in the successful outcome of this project.

Respondent Company

Gabrielle Coleman Alliant Energy

Bill M Alliant Energy

Terry Hanratty Ameren Energy Generating

Anthony Balesteri Ameren UE

Matt Becker Ameren UE

Steve Ewens Ameren UE

Ken Chermansky Arizona Public Service

Marc Christianson Dairyland Power Coop

Harold Thomas Dayton Power & Light

Jennifer Gezymalla Dominion Virginia Power

Michael Turner Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut.

Tim Hanna Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.

Nick El-takach DTE Energy

Dennis Mason Duke Energy

Bruce Davis Dynegy Midwest Generation

Dave Huber Dynegy Midwest Generation

Greg Saplin Dynegy

Jerry Weber Edison Mission Energy

Wilson da Silva Ribeiro Jr Electrobras Termonuclear SA

11464173 vii
 Respondent Company

John Hager Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Hai Nguyen Entergy Services, Inc.

Hisham Sidani Entergy Services, Inc.

John Rommel Exelon Generation, LLC

Joseph Schival Exelon Generation, LLC

Michael Coakley Exelon Corporation

Gregg Larson Exelon Corporation

Steve Latimer Exelon Corporation

Lawrence Porter Exelon Corporation

Perry Holzman FPL / Next Era Energy Resources

Mike DeCaprio Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc.

Ken LaMont Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Coop., Inc.

Pete Ulvog Luminant

NB Power Nuclear New Brunswick Power

Pat Crain Generation Corporation

Robert Hendrix NRG Energy, Inc.

James Lard NRG Energy, Inc.

Nick Marchetti PPL Generation, LLC

James Barnes Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

T. V. Dao South Carolina Electric & Gas

Gregory Mann Southern Company Generation

Warren Hopson Southern Company Services, Inc.

11464173 viii
 Respondent Company

Joe Shelton Southern Company Services, Inc.

Stanley Wilke Southern Company Services

Peter Ballinger Tarong Energy Corp., Ltd.

Jim Carter Tennessee Valley Authority

Terry Bussard Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

11464173 ix
11464173
 CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .......................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background ..............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Purpose ....................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Basic Premises.........................................................................................................1-1
1.3.1 Confidentiality of Survey Results........................................................................1-1
1.3.2 Exoneration of Manufacturers and Suppliers .....................................................1-1
1.4 Key Definitions and Glossary of Terms ....................................................................1-2
1.4.1 Key Definitions ...................................................................................................1-2
1.4.2 Glossary of Terms ..............................................................................................1-2
1.5 Acronyms .................................................................................................................1-3

2 GENERIC PROCESS USED TO OBTAIN FEEDBACK ........................................................2-1

2.1 Overview of the Process ..........................................................................................2-1
2.2 Development and Content of the Survey Questionnaire ..........................................2-1
2.2.1 Purpose and Scope of the Survey......................................................................2-1
2.2.2 Conduct of the Survey........................................................................................2-1
2.2.3 Compile, Normalize and Analyze Results ..........................................................2-1
2.2.4 Conduct Follow-up Discussions .........................................................................2-2

3 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................3-1

3.1 General Results of the Survey .................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Number of Respondents ....................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Generating Companies Responding ..................................................................3-1
3.2 Detailed Results of the Survey .................................................................................3-2
3.2.1 Feedwater Heater Replacements.......................................................................3-2
3.2.2 Types of Feedwater Heaters Replaced..............................................................3-2
3.2.3 Timeframe of the Feedwater Heaters Replacement(s) ......................................3-3
3.2.4 Age of the Feedwater Heaters ...........................................................................3-3
3.2.5 How Similar Was the Replacement to the Original (Was it Like for Like)?.........3-4
3.2.6 Replacement Drivers..........................................................................................3-4
3.2.7 Actions Taken to Extend Heater Life or Postpone Replacement .......................3-6
3.2.8 Performance Evaluation of the New Feedwater Heater .....................................3-7
3.2.9 Problems Encountered.......................................................................................3-8
3.2.10 Modification Work Done Online........................................................................3-9
3.2.11 Length of Time for Removal and Replacement..............................................3-10
3.2.12 Order, Delivery, and Shipment Information ....................................................3-10
3.2.13 Materials Procurement ...................................................................................3-11
3.2.14 Department Champions .................................................................................3-12

11464173 xi
4 CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................4-1
4.1 Summary of Results .................................................................................................4-1

5 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................5-1

A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................. A-1

11464173 xii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 List of Power Generating Companies Responding to the Survey..............................3-1
Table 3-2 Responses on which Feedwater Heaters were Replaced .........................................3-3
Table 3-3 Timeframe of Heater Replacements..........................................................................3-3
Table 3-4 Age of the Feedwater Heater at Time of Replacement .............................................3-3
Table 3-5 Changes from Original Feedwater Heater .................................................................3-4
Table 3-6 Feedwater Heater Replacement Drivers ...................................................................3-4
Table 3-7 Additional Feedwater Heater Replacement Drivers...................................................3-5
Table 3-8 Specific Criteria used to base the Decision for Replacement ....................................3-5
Table 3-9 Criteria Based on Number of Tubes Plugged ............................................................3-6
Table 3-10 Actions Taken to Extend Heater Life or Postpone Replacement.............................3-6
Table 3-11 Consideration or Employment of Retubing Options.................................................3-7
Table 3-12 How the New Feedwater Heater’s Performance was Evaluated .............................3-8
Table 3-13 Evaluation / Test Methods .......................................................................................3-8
Table 3-14 Problems Encountered ............................................................................................3-8
Table 3-15 Elaboration and Additional Problems Encountered .................................................3-9
Table 3-16 Work Done Online ...................................................................................................3-9
Table 3-17 How Much Work was Done Online ........................................................................3-10
Table 3-18 Length of Time for Removal and Replacement .....................................................3-10
Table 3-19 Was the Heater Replacement Critical Path of the Outage?...................................3-10
Table 3-20 Length of Time for between Placing the Order and Shipment ...............................3-11
Table 3-21 Material Procurement Issues .................................................................................3-11
Table 3-22 Department Champions.........................................................................................3-12

11464173 xiii
11464173
1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1.1 Background
Over the past 10-15 years, an increased number of fossil and nuclear power plants have
undertaken plant modifications to extend the life, enhance the reliability, and/or improve the heat
rate of selected units. Many of these actions have included physical upgrades or replacements to
the units’ feedwater heaters, as well as enhancements to other components.
Over this time, various organizations in EPRI have undertaken studies to collect data concerning
the feedwater heater replacements or upgrades, but the data did not specifically determine the
triggers for replacement and how effectively each replacement met owner expectations. This
project will compile historic data and current results of heater replacement to produce a single
technical report summarizing the findings.

1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide results obtained through EPRI members regarding the
experiences of nuclear licensees and fossil power plant owners after physical replacements and
upgrades of their feedwater heaters. By answering a series of specific and focused questions
provided in an electronic survey, feedback was obtained regarding each respondent’s
replacement scope, objectives, and results. Some of the respondents were contacted later to
augment the information initially submitted. This report compiles the data and draws a number
of conclusions and lessons learned to assist other utilities and electric generating companies
anticipating feedwater heater replacements or upgrades at their sites.

1.3 Basic Premises

1.3.1 Confidentiality of Survey Results

The results presented in this report are formatted in a way so utility respondents cannot be
identified with any particular set(s) of data. Protecting the anonymity of respondents was a
condition set forth in the survey and was established in an attempt to maximize the number of
utilities and plants responding.

1.3.2 Exoneration of Manufacturers and Suppliers

The results presented in this report are not intended to imply fault or negligence on the part of
any particular manufacturer or supplier, whether they were the original equipment manufacturer,
supplier of materials, or the organization that performed the modifications or replacement. To
ensure there are no unintended implications of any supply organization, the names of these
organizations were not collected and therefore are not correlated to any specific data or results
presented and discussed in this report.

11464173 1-1
1.4 Key Definitions and Glossary of Terms

1.4.1 Key Definitions

Feedwater Heater – a shell and tube heat exchanger that receives extraction steam drawn from
the steam turbine to increase the temperature of the feedwater in advance of the feedwater
entering the boiler or steam generator. This process has been proven to improve the efficiency of
a steam power cycle by transferring the latent heat contained in the extraction steam to reduce
the amount of heat input required from the steam generator. Much of the extraction steam latent
heat would have been rejected to condenser, if not used in the feedwater heater. Increasing the
temperature of the feedwater prior to entering the boiler or steam generator also reduces the
thermal stresses on the headers and tubing. Most power plants are designed with several
feedwater heaters, typically from 4-8 operating at different pressures; increasing the feedwater
temperature in quantum steps. Power plants with high feedwater flow rates may have parallel
strings of heaters.

1.4.2 Glossary of Terms

Deaerator or Deaerating Heater – This feedwater heater permits direct contact between the
extraction steam and the feedwater to heat the feedwater and promotes the release and removal
of non-condensable gases. Found only in fossil-fired units, most steam power cycles contain only
one deaerator, typically located directly upstream of the feedwater pump suction.

Derate – A reduction of a unit’s generating capacity. A derate may be short or long term in
duration.

Fabricator – The organization in the power plant owner / operator supply chain responsible for
fabricating parts, assemblies, and sub-components needed to manufacture the replacement
component.

Manufacturer – The organization in the power plant owner / operator supply chain responsible
for manufacturing and assembling the replacement component as specified.

Original Equipment Manufacturer or OEM – The organization in the power plant owner /
operator supply chain responsible for manufacturing and assembling the original component as
initially designed specified during plant construction.

Power Uprate – An uprate is distinctive from a performance upgrade in that the increase in
power output is typically achieved by increasing the inlet temperature or mass flow into the
turbine, thereby providing more available energy to the original turbine components and
increasing output. The term power uprate is commonly used to indicate an increase in reactor
thermal power and is commonly used in reference to nuclear plants.

Performance Upgrade – A change in design or operating method that brings about an

improvement in heat rate, efficiency, or reliability of the component, system, or unit.

Replacement – The removal and installation of a new component to serve the same function as
the original.

11464173 1-2
Retubing – With respect to heat exchangers, it is the replacement of just the tube bundle (and not
the shell or other attachments).

Supplier – The organization furnishing a commercial grade item or basic component. This could
include an original equipment manufacturer, part manufacturer, or distributor.

1.5 Acronyms
EPRI – Electric Power Research Institute
HP – High Pressure
IP – Intermediate Pressure
LP – Low Pressure
OEM – Original Equipment Manufacturer

11464173 1-3
11464173
2
GENERIC PROCESS USED TO OBTAIN FEEDBACK
2.1 Overview of the Process

The following steps outline the process used to compile the data and results for this report.
• Develop Survey Questions
• Conduct Survey
• Compile Results
• Analyze Results
• Conduct Follow-up Discussions
• Draw Conclusions and Lessons Learned
• Write Draft Report
• Conduct an Independent Review of Draft Report
• Edit and Publish the Report

2.2 Development and Content of the Survey Questionnaire

2.2.1 Purpose and Scope of the Survey

The purpose of the survey was to collect feedback from nuclear licensees and fossil power plant
owners and operators regarding the results of feedwater heater replacements performed at their
facilities. The survey questions were developed with input from a team of EPRI and utility
personnel in a manner so as to optimize the number and quality of responses, and to ensure
questions were worded objectively. Special care was taken so as not to imply any shortcomings
with the work performed by the organizations performing the replacement or furnishing the
equipment. The survey questions are contained in Appendix A.

2.2.2 Conduct of the Survey

The survey was conducted in April and May 2009 using an electronic-response software tool.
This tool enabled respondents to respond anonymously to the questions (if desired) and
facilitated completing the survey via the Internet. As noted in Section 3 of this report, a total of
44 responses were compiled.

2.2.3 Compile, Normalize and Analyze Results

The survey results were compiled electronically using the software described above, but because
different units and numerous replacements may be included in a single response, the data was

11464173 2-1
manually reviewed to ensure complete understanding of the situation. Where necessary and
possible, that included breaking the data down to the individual heater level. A manual review
process was also employed to ensure that multiple responses for any one heater replacement
were combined into a single entry.

Once the data were normalized as described above, a thorough analysis of the data was
performed during June 2009.

2.2.4 Conduct Follow-up Discussions

In some cases, it was necessary to follow-up with certain respondents via telephone interviews or
email to clarify the data that were initially provided in the survey. Special care was taken to
ensure that only those individuals indicating a willingness to discuss the replacement(s) in more
detail were in fact contacted. Through these discussions, a wealth of lessons learned and more
detailed results were obtained, that were instrumental in developing the conclusions presented in
this report.

11464173 2-2
3
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
3.1 General Results of the Survey

The following sections provide an overview of the general results of the survey in terms of the
number of respondents from power generating companies, and the number and types of plant
(fossil or nuclear) participating.

3.1.1 Number of Respondents

A total of 44 responses were received by EPRI, which are discussed in detail in Section 3.2 of
this report. The responses were comprised of 27 representing fossil power plants 17 representing
nuclear power plants. Some power generating companies submitted more than one response,
representing heater replacements in different power plants. Approximately 300 feedwater heater
replacements are represented by this data.

3.1.2 Generating Companies Responding

Table 3-1 lists the power generating companies that provided the 44 responses representing both
fossil and nuclear power plants. Some, but not all companies that operate both fossil and nuclear
power plants responded for feedwater heater replacements in both types of facilities.

Table 3-1
List of Power Generating Companies Responding to the Survey

Company Name (Fossil-Fired) Company Name (Nuclear)

Alliant Energy Arizona Public Service

Ameren Energy AmerenUE

Ameren UE Dominion

Dairyland Power Cooperative Duke

Dayton Power & Light Electrobras Termonuclear SA

DTE Energy Entergy

Dynegy Exelon

Entergy FPL / Next Era Energy Resources

Exelon NB Power Nuclear

HECO PSEG

Hoosier Energy South Carolina Electric & Gas

Luminant Southern Company

11464173 3-1
 Company Name (Fossil-Fired) Company Name (Nuclear)

NRG Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Company

PPL Generation LLC

Southern Company

Tarong Energy

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

3.2 Detailed Results of the Survey

The following section details the actual results of the survey for each question.

Some survey questions permitted the choice of more than one response; hence the sum of the
percentages associated with the list of choices may exceed 100%.

3.2.1 Feedwater Heater Replacements

This survey received information on the replacement of 297 feedwater heaters. While 9
respondents had only replaced one feedwater heater, of all the companies who had replaced
heaters, they reported replacing an average of 7 heaters. Several companies reported replacing
20-30 heaters across their fleet. Three companies reported additional heater replacements are
planned. The average number of planned replacements is 11.

No information was requested in the survey concerning the heater manufacturers and service
companies replacing or installing the heat exchangers. The results presented in this report are not
intended to imply fault or negligence on the part of any particular manufacturer or organization
that performed the modifications.

3.2.2 Types of Feedwater Heaters Replaced

Table 3-2 represents which feedwater heaters were replaced by those responding to this survey.

11464173 3-2
Table 3-2
Responses on which Feedwater Heaters were Replaced

Number of
Percentage
Which Heaters were Replaced? Cases

High-Pressure Heaters 12 27%

Low-Pressure Heaters 12 27%

All Heaters 15 34%

Deaerator Heater 1 2%

None 4 10%

Total 44 100%

3.2.3 Timeframe of the Feedwater Heaters Replacement(s)

Table 3-3 lists the timeframes over which the feedwater heaters were replaced.

Table 3-3
Timeframe of Heater Replacements

Timeframe of Replacements Number of Cases Percentage

All Done Simultaneously 13 38%

Staggered over time 21 62%

Over those providing detailed information on replacements staggered over time, the average was
10 heaters replaced over a 7 year time frame. Those responses covered a range from 2 to 25
heaters replaced over a period of several months to 27 years.

3.2.4 Age of the Feedwater Heaters

Table 3-4 lists the age of the feedwater heaters when they were replaced as reflected in the
responses to the EPRI survey.

Table 3-4
Age of the Feedwater Heater at Time of Replacement

Number of
Age of Feedwater Heater Cases Percentage

< 10 years 2 5%
11 – 20 years 7 18%
21 – 30 years 22 55%
31 – 40 years 4 10%
> 40 years 5 12%

11464173 3-3
The average age at time of replacement was 27 years. The range spanned from 7 to 60 years.

3.2.5 How Similar Was the Replacement to the Original (Was it Like for Like)?

The purpose of this series of questions was to determine what changes, if any, were made to the
replacement feedwater heater or its design. 14% of the replacements were like-for-like. Changes
occurred in the other 86% of the replacements. Table 3-5 lists the major categories of changes
made in the new feedwater heater.

Table 3-5
Changes from Original Feedwater Heater

Changes from Original Feedwater Heater Number of Cases Percentage

Material 27 74%
Surface Area 21 57%

Number of Tubes 17 46%

Physical Dimensions 16 43%

Venting 12 31%
Other 8 20%

Other changes reported included configuration of inlet and outlet connections, performance,
duty, tube support spacing, wall thickness, and man-way size. This survey question permitted
the choice of more than one response; hence the sum of the percentages exceeds 100%.

3.2.6 Replacement Drivers

This series of questions sought the information on the issues that drove the replacement.
Table 3-6 lists the primary responses to the provided choices for heater replacement drivers.

Table 3-6
Feedwater Heater Replacement Drivers

Heater Replacement Drivers Responses Percentage

Reliability 27 67%
End of Life 21 51%
Chemistry Issues (including removing copper) 15 38%
Performance Issues 12 31%
Unit Uprate 1 3%

This survey question permitted the choice of more than one response; hence the sum of the
percentages exceeds 100%.

11464173 3-4
Specific causes and drivers mentioned in addition to the choices offered include:

Table 3-7
Additional Feedwater Heater Replacement Drivers

Additional Heater Replacement Drivers Responses

Tube Failures or Failure Rate 16

Erosion 4

Material 3
Production Losses 2

Sea water intrusion 2

Shell 2
Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) 2

Tube Fretting 2
Tubesheet Problems 2
Aging, end of life 1

Flow Accelerate Corrosion (FAC) 1

Tubes Clogging 1

When asked for specific criteria used to base the decision to replace a feedwater heater, the
responses while meaningful, did not establish numerical values to base future replacements. The
chemistry and material issues drove the changes in material away from copper based alloys to
stainless steels.

Table 3-8 lists the specific replacement criteria voiced by the respondents to this survey.

Table 3-8
Specific Criteria used to base the Decision for Replacement

Specific Criteria Responses

Change Material to Stainless Steel (removing copper) 6

Reliability 7

Testing, Inspection, Failure Analysis 8

Performance Losses 9

Tube Plugging and Degradation 20

Seven responses contained their numerical criteria based on a percentage of tubes plugged
compared to the total number of tubes in the heater; refer to Table 3-9 for details. Other singular
responses to this question that did not provide numerical criteria included: maintenance costs,

11464173 3-5
operating costs, time in service, unit power uprate, support plate problems, tube clogging, and
personnel safety.

Table 3-9 contains the breakdown of the twenty (20) responses that stated tube plugging and
degradation were used as the criteria in the decision to replace a feedwater heater.

Table 3-9
Criteria Based on Number of Tubes Plugged

Tube Plugging Criteria Responses

No specific plugging/degradation criteria 13

10% of tubes plugged 4

15% of tubes plugged 2

20% of tubes plugged 1

3.2.7 Actions Taken to Extend Heater Life or Postpone Replacement

Table 3-10 lists the actions taken to extend heater life or postpone replacement.

Table 3-10
Actions Taken to Extend Heater Life or Postpone Replacement

Number
Actions Taken of Cases

Plugged Tubes 15

Eddy Current Testing 5

Insurance Plugging of Tubes 5

None 5
Hole Cut / Drilled in Partition Plate 4

Structural Repairs 4

Sleeves or Inserts used on tubes 4

Bypassed the Heater, Removed Heater from Service 3

Stabilized plugged or damaged tubes 3

Tubesheet Repairs 3

Changed the Operating Liquid Level 2

Changed Water Chemistry 2

Conducted an Internal Inspection 2

11464173 3-6
 Number
Actions Taken of Cases

Pressure Tested Tubes 2

Replaced Some Tubes (less than the entire bundle) 2

Improved Tube Plugging Procedure 1

Pulled / Removed Tubes 1

Staked Tubes 1

Table 3-11 lists the responses on if retubing options were considered or employed prior to
making the decision for replacement.

Table 3-11
Consideration or Employment of Retubing Options

Number
Retubing Options of Cases
Partial or Complete Retubing Done 11

Retubing Considered (no information if acted upon) 10

Retubing Not Considered 8

Not a Good Option / Not Practical 4

Not Cost Effective 3

Considered, but Not Done 2

Too Extensive 1

Would Not Prevent Recurrence 1

Yes, with Level Control 1

In some cases a partial or complete retubing was done years preceding the replacement, therefore
successfully delaying the expense of a replacement.

3.2.8 Performance Evaluation of the New Feedwater Heater

This portion of the survey provided information on the performance evaluation of the feedwater
heater after replacement. Table 3-12 lists the methods used to evaluate the performance of the
new feedwater heater.

11464173 3-7
Table 3-12
How the New Feedwater Heater’s Performance was Evaluated

Performance Evaluation Method Responses

Used Process Data 33

Not Done 3

Employed a Special Test or Method 13

Two responses were provided for not evaluating the new heater’s performance:
The reason to replace the heater was to eliminate copper
The replacement was like for like; designed, manufactured, and installed by the OEM
Table 3-13 shows the breakdown of responses for those conducting a special test or method. Of
those conducting thermal performance tests or analyzing the operating data, one fifth (2) used
test instruments. The remaining relied upon process data.

Table 3-13
Evaluation / Test Methods

Evaluation / Test Methods Responses

Inhouse Performance Test Methods 5

Pressure Test 3

Reviewed Operating Data 3

ASME Performance Test Code (PTC 12.1) 2

Eddy Current Testing 1

3.2.9 Problems Encountered

Table 3-14 provided the responses on problems encountered during feedwater heater
replacements.

Table 3-14
Problems Encountered

Problems Responses Percentage

Performance 5 42%
Cost Over-run 4 33%
Operation 4 33%
Delivery 3 25%
Installation 2 17%

11464173 3-8
This survey question permitted the choice of more than one response; hence the sum of the
percentages exceeds 100%.

Table 3-15 contains additional responses and elaboration beyond the initially anticipated
problem choices.

Table 3-15
Elaboration and Additional Problems Encountered

Problems Responses

None 9

Manufacturing 4
Obstructions / Interference during Installation 3

Instrumentation 2

Erosion 1

Feedwater Oxygen Content 1

Fretting 1

Heater Isolation 1

Piping Modifications 1

Poor Foreign Material Exclusion 1

Poor Planning 1
Project Justification and Approval 1

Specification Error 1

3.2.10 Modification Work Done Online

The tabulation of responses to the question “Was any or all of the work done while the unit was
online?” are contained in Table 3-16.

Table 3-16
Work Done Online

Responses Percentage

Yes 11 29%
No 27 71%

Table 3-17 contains additional responses concerning the work performed while the unit was
online.

11464173 3-9
Table 3-17
How Much Work was Done Online

How Much Work was Done Online Responses

Totally Online 2
None 6

Some, which included 12

-Prep Work 7
-Insulation 4
-Instrumentation 1

3.2.11 Length of Time for Removal and Replacement

The length of time for the removal and replacement of a feedwater heater ranged from 9 to
42 days. The average removal and replacement occurred in 23 days.

Table 3-18 contains a histogram of the lengths of time reported.

Table 3-18
Length of Time for Removal and Replacement

Time Range in days Responses Percentage

9 - 14 6 21%

15 - 21 10 34%

22 - 28 6 21%
29 - 42 7 24%

The following question related the time required for heater replacement to that of critical path of
the outage. The responses are summarized in Table 3-19.

Table 3-19
Was the Heater Replacement Critical Path of the Outage?

Responses Percentage

Yes 5 14%
No 31 86%

3.2.12 Order, Delivery, and Shipment Information

The length of time between placing the order and the shipment of material spanned a range of 3
to 24 months with an average of 9 months. Table 3-20 contains a histogram of the lengths of
time reported. Many of the replacements reported on occurred in the past. Over time material

11464173 3-10
availability has changed. The incorporation of these older data points into the results may not
fully reflect today’s actual delivery times.

Table 3-20
Length of Time for between Placing the Order and Shipment

Months Responses

3 1
4 1
5 1

6 5

7 2
8 1

9 4
10 3

11 1

12 4
13-18 4
>18 1

3.2.13 Materials Procurement

Table 3-21contains information on the materials or components were difficult to procure, driving
cost and/or delivery schedule.

Table 3-21
Material Procurement Issues

Problems Responses Percentage

Tubing 5 22%
Tubesheet 3 13%
Manufacturer / Fabricator Shop Time 2 9%
Forgings 1 4%
Hemi-head 1 4%
None 11 48%

The comments included:

• Problems came from trying to save money on the small stuff and old instruments – much of
which could not be reused after removal.

11464173 3-11
 • ALL material costs were climbing rapidly, so it was important to place the contract to lock
in the price.
• Went offshore for tube material SA-556 C2.
• Money to purchase heaters was the most difficult thing to procure.

3.2.14 Department Champions

Table 3-22 provides information the location of department champions / leaders for the
feedwater heater replacement.

Table 3-22
Department Champions

Department Responses
Engineering 34
Maintenance 9
Operations 7
All 2
Project Management 2
Subject Matter Expert 1
Power Uprate Group 1
Contracted Out (to an external company) 1

11464173 3-12
4
CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED
4.1 Summary of Results

The level of feedwater replacement activity is high, as many have been recently replaced,
providing us a solid base of information for this survey and report. This activity level shows
signs of continuing, with reports of additional heater replacements in the planning stages.

Replacements of these shell and tube heat exchangers have been reported for those operating at
all pressure levels. This survey received the report of only one deaerating heater replacement.

Most feedwater heater replacements have occurred when the heater is in the 21-30 year age
range. Since the average power plant has been operating for more than 40 years, some power
plant operators are now replacing heaters for the second time. Many more heater replacements
will occur as the power generation fleet across the US ages. Some power plant operators were
successful in attaining feedwater heater lives of over 40 years, essentially halving the
replacement frequency.

The most common change from original design is that of material. Many power plant operators
are avoiding copper in their feedwater systems to prevent or reduce water chemistry issues.

Reliability is the primary reason for replacement. Reliability improvements include reducing
tube failures and their associated forced outages or periods of derating.

No firm numerical criteria emerged as the trigger for replacement. The reported fractions of tube
plugged prior to replacement included 10, 15, and 20%.

Beyond plugging leaking tubes, many respondents had taken actions to extend life or at least
postpone/delay replacement and the associated expenditures.

With respect to verifying the new heater’s performance, very few conducted actual tests with
precision instruments, but many post modification evaluations were conducted with process data.

Approximately one half of the respondents reported some type of problems with the replacement.
There were few commonalities in the responses; one recommendation is to pay attention to the
details throughout the process.

Most of the replacement work was performed while the unit was off-line. Some prep work done
in advance while the unit was online, but only 5% of the respondents completed the entire
replacement while the unit was online.

11464173 4-1
Feedwater heater replacements can typically be successfully completed in planned outages of
four weeks. The replacement of a feedwater heater is typically not the critical path of the unit
outage.

The replacement heater will typically require placing an order at least nine months in advance.
Approximately one third of the respondents reported material procurement issues.
Acknowledging the responses cover replacements that have been done both recently and years in
the past, the level of material procurement issues might be different today under current global
economics.

Issues recommended for evaluation in the design of replacement feedwater heaters included:
• Nozzle velocities
• Steam dome velocities
• Divider plate strength
• Drain cooler momentum inlet energy
• Momentum differences between super-heated and saturated steam

11464173 4-2
5
REFERENCES
Compilation of Results and Feedback Regarding Turbine Upgrades at Nuclear and Fossil Power
Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: November 2008. 1018346.
Feedwater Heater Maintenance Guide. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: May 2002. 1003470.
Life Cycle Management Sourcebooks Volume 10: Feedwater Heaters. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
December 2003. 1009073.
Plant Support Engineering: Guidance for Replacing Feedwater Heaters at Nuclear Power
Plants. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: July 2007. 1014826.
Feedwater Heater Conference Proceedings. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007. 1014165.
Feedwater Heater Technology Symposium. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2004. 1004121.

11464173 5-1
11464173
A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
The survey that was used to collect and compile data regarding the results of feedwater heater
replacements is contained in this appendix.

Feedwater Heater Replacement Survey

This survey’s questions were designed to gather information on the replacement of feedwater heaters in
operating steam power plants. The information will be compiled and provided to EPRI members to assist
them in the decision making process regarding replacing a feedwater heater and to provide them with a
historical perspective on what to expect. All individual responses will be kept confidential.

Please complete by Monday, May 4th.

We expect the results of this effort to be presented in a similar report as those from the turbine upgrade
survey, EPRI report 1018346. This effort, similar to the turbine survey, will be done in conjunction with 3
EPRI groups, FMAC (Fossil Maintenance Applications Center), HXPUG (nuclear Heat eXchangers
Performance User's Group), and Project 71.005 Heat Rate and Cost Optimization. With this wide
participation, we do expect increased input and also an increase of the number of EPRI members
benefiting from the results.

Thank you in advance for your time in completing the survey. Please forward this notice to others within
your organization that might provide input.

Sam Korellis
EPRI Generation
704-595-2209
skorellis@epri.com

11464173 A-1
Survey Questions
1 Thank you for assisting with our survey.
Your information and comments are important to ensure accurate survey results.
-Respondent’s Name
-Company
2 How many FW heaters were replaced?
3 Which heaters were replaced?
-HP
-LP
-All
-Other, please specify
3 Were they replaced simultaneously or staggered in time? If staggered, over what time frame?
4 How old was each heater at the time of replacement?
5 Was the replacement like-for-like?
-Yes
-No
6 If not, what changed?
-Material
-Surface Area
-Size
-Number of Tubes
-Venting
-Other, please specify
7 What drove the replacement?
-Chemistry Issues, e.g. removing copper
-Performance Issues
-Reliability
-Unit Uprate
-End of Life
8 What drove the replacement additional information?
9 What were the specific criteria used to make the decision to replace the feedwater heater?
10 What, if any, actions were performed to extend the life of the feedwater heater or postpone the
replacement?
11 Were retubing options considered or employed prior to making the decision for replacement?
12 How was the new feedwater heater’s performance evaluated?
-Process Data
-Not
-Special Test, what protocol?
13 If not, why?
14 What problems were encountered?
-Installation
-Delivery
-Operation
-Performance
-Cost over-run
16 Please elaborate on problems that were encountered.
17 Was any of all of the work done while the unit was online?
-yes
-no
18 How long did the removal and replacement take?
19 Was this the critical path of the outage?
20 How long was the period of time between placing the order and shipment of material?
21 What materials or components were difficult to procure, driving cost and/or delivery schedule?
22 Which department are the champions / leaders of the replacement in?
-Maintenance
-Operations
-Engineering
-Other, please specify
23 May we contact you to discuss your responses? If so, please provide email and phone #.

11464173 A-2
11464173
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,
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 more than 90 percent of
the electricity generated and delivered in the United
States, and international participation extends to 40
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

© 2009 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.

1019583

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

11464173