Cycle Chemistry Upsets During Operation:

Cost and Benefit Considerations

SED
R I
A L

LICE

M AT E

WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement
on the back cover before removing
the Wrapping Material.

Technical Report

Effective December 21, 2011, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with
Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration
Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does
not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and
any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the document prior to publication.

Cycle Chemistry Upsets During

Operation: Cost and Benefit
Considerations
1008085

Final Report, January 2005

EPRI Project Manager

R. B. Dooley

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 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(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
Portal Solutions

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Portal Solutions
279 Sims Road
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Principal Investigator
L. Rubin
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Cycle Chemistry Upsets During Operation: Cost and Benefit Considerations, EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2005. 1008085.

iii

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

Good cycle chemistry in a power plant is of fundamental importance, yet the work and expense
of maintaining good chemistry can often be neglected in favor of more immediate concerns. In
no circumstances is this tension more marked than during a real time excursion incident. The
pressure to rectify a chemistry problem during operation can be enormous; but the pressure to
stay online can be equally intense; and plant management and staff are very often caught in a
serious quandary. This report outlines a body of decision guidance designed to help reconcile
this tension.
Results & Findings
The risk of long-term equipment damage grows as chemistry excursion episodes increase in
length and severity, and this risk must be traded off against the certain impacts of a
shutdown/repair alternative at each stage of an excursion situation. The exact nature of this trade
off can never be known with precision, but some statistical inferences can be drawn from a wide
variety of incidents experienced by many power plant operators. These statistical relationships
take into account such nuances as the way such excursions are measured, i.e., which indicators
are usedlength, severity, and frequency, among other factors.
Challenges & Objectives
This report is the fourth in a series that has addressed cycle chemistry valuation issues in fossil
power plants and endeavored to provide a consistent, value-based rational for decision-making.
Previous studies (EPRI reports 1001557 and 1004641) have focused on chemistry upgrade and
improvement justifications. A preliminary report on operational decision guidance (EPRI report
1004935) was published in 2003. This study continues the development suggested in 2003 and
further extends the overall approach to real-time chemistry excursion situations. The objectives
of this study were:

To provide an overall framework for decision guidance in the face of real-time cycle
chemistry excursion situations

To better understand the underlying origins and risks of long-term damage resulting from
real-time chemistry excursions.

Applications, Values & Use

Cycle chemistry effects are very often longer term, uncertain as to timing and magnitude, and
hidden by other root causes. Therefore, quantifying the degree of purity needed and whether it is
economically justifiable can be quite difficult and dependent on professional judgment. The
methodology under development in this project will ultimately incorporate cost and value
considerations into the EPRI guidelines and ChemExpert software.

EPRI Perspective
The results from this series of projects have begun to help chemists and operators better
understand and value cycle chemistry practice and activity. Through the use of standard financial
valuation tools combined with risk and decision analysis, this work has been useful in providing
a framework for analysis and a better means of communication between the technical needs of
chemists and the budgetary process. Interest in these approaches is spreading as a result of this
success, and they are currently being applied in the areas of nuclear cycle chemistry, basic
materials, and power plant instrumentation.
Approach
The project team began this research with a conceptual model of values and costs expected from
a real-time chemistry excursion, developed by the research team in consultation with EPRI and
key utility advisors. As this development progressed a fundamental unknown became identified,
namely the relationship between length and severity of excursion and the degree of long-term
damage expected. The project team formulated a statistical approach to characterize this
relationship and suggested a format for data collection in the future.
Keywords
Cycle chemistry
Risk assessment
Asset management
Power plants
Real-time decision support

vi

EPRI Licensed Material

ABSTRACT
The purity of water and steam in a power plant is a fundamental, underlying condition. It is
often difficult however, to determine just how pure the water needs to be, and how much one can
justify spending to get there. Chemistry effects are very often longer-term, uncertain as to timing
and magnitude, and subject to masking by other root causes, so quantifying the degree of purity
needed and whether it is economically justifiable can be quite difficult, and highly dependent on
professional judgement. In no circumstances is this tension between the costs and benefits of
good chemistry more acute than during a real time chemistry incident. When cycle chemistry
indicators go bad during operation there are both risks and benefits to continued operation as
well as to shutdown and repair, and sorting these out can be a challenge.
This report further explains an evolving approach to represent the impact of real-time chemistry
excursions, and the mitigation of potential responses. This methodology builds directly on the
underlying guidance embodied in the EPRI cycle chemistry guidelines and in the ChemExpert
software, and represents in essence an extension of those guidelines to incorporate cost and value
considerations.

vii

EPRI Licensed Material

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There has been enormous depth and breadth of expertise brought to bear on this effort, including
the most recent work on real-time decision guidance and previous efforts addressing capital
improvements and upgrades. For the last four years I have been guided and advised by a firstclass group of technical experts, who have educated me and critiqued my work. This cadre has
also worked very hard themselves to understand and apply these decision support methods to
their work, and the results have been overall quite impressive. This research would not have had
the success it has enjoyed without their support and advice.
First the EPRI staff has been invaluable. I owe a great debt since the beginning of this work to
project manager Barry Dooley, former project manager Dale Gray, and to Kevin Shields.
Also I have been helped throughout the real-time effort by a kitchen cabinet of advisors, who
have helped as well in data acquisition. These individuals include Brad Burns (Progress
Energy), Steve Donner (Consumers), Tom Gilchrist (Tri-State), Doug Hubbard (AEP), Richard
Micko (Entergy) and George Verib (First Energy).
In addition other utility chemists helped me to execute a wide selection of case study examples,
which have served to refine and sharpen these techniques as the work progressed. These include
Bud Herre (PP&L), Randy Veik (OPPD), Steve Shulder (Constellation), Brian Schmidt
(Ameren), Linda Riley (KCP&L), Ronnie Pate and John Banger (Southern Co.), John Moffett
and Michael Rupinen (LG&E), John Stinson (TXU) and Andy Howell (Xcel Energy).
Finally, innumerable other people have also made contributions, simply through comments,
questions and conversations they have had with me in the course of these efforts, at EPRI
advisory meetings and elsewhere. This has been in a very important sense a communityeffort.
I thank everyone involved, but I reserve for myself sole responsibility for errors and omissions.

ix

EPRI Licensed Material

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
2 METHODOLOGY DESIGN.....................................................................................................2-1
Severity of Excursion Episodes and Implications..................................................................2-3
The Valuation Impacts of Excursion......................................................................................2-4
Longterm Damage.................................................................................................................2-6
3 ESTIMATING INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE ..............................................................................3-1
Cause-and-Effect Assumptions.............................................................................................3-1
Massaging the Data ..............................................................................................................3-2
Statistical Estimation .............................................................................................................3-6
4 ONGOING DATA COLLECTION AND NEXT STEPS ...........................................................4-1

xi

EPRI Licensed Material

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Comparing Cost Impacts: Shutdown vs. Continuing Operation................................2-6
Figure 2-2 Cost Impacts Expected from a Variety of Chemistry Excursions..............................2-7
Figure 3-1 Damage Expense Related to Excursion State .........................................................3-7
Figure 4-1 Boiler Tube Failure Information Report ....................................................................4-2
Figure 4-2 Chemistry Excursion Information Report ..................................................................4-3

xiii

EPRI Licensed Material

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Decision Alternatives in the Event of a Chemistry Excursion ....................................2-2
Table 2-2 EPRI Chemistry Guidelines Cation Conductivity at Economizer Inlet (allferrous baseload drum unit) ...............................................................................................2-4
Table 3-1 Examples of Field Data Heterogeneity ......................................................................3-3
Table 3-2 A Chronological Look at Field Data ...........................................................................3-4
Table 3-3 Representative Raw Data and Weighting Scheme....................................................3-5
Table 3-4 Total Days in Excursion and Total Rectification Cost ................................................3-6

xv

EPRI Licensed Material

1
INTRODUCTION

The purity of water and steam in a power plant is a fundamental, underlying condition. Through
its effects on the metallurgy of piping and vessels throughout the plant, cycle chemistry has a
tremendous influence on physical integrity, on efficiency of operation, and ultimately on plant
profitability. If the cycle chemistry is not carefully controlled and monitored within pre-defined
limits, corrosion, cracking, deposition and other forms of metal damage can result throughout the
plant systems. These in turn will bring about outages, higher heat rates, higher production costs,
and potentially enormous repair bills, increasingly costly conditions as power generation
becomes more competitive.
In the abstract no one argues with the propositions above. The problem is always the same - to
determine just how pure the water needs to be, and how much one can justify spending to get
there. Quantifying the degree of purity needed and whether it is economically justifiable can be
quite difficult, and highly dependent on professional judgement. Chemistry effects are very
often longer-term, uncertain as to timing and magnitude, and subject to masking by other root
causes. This is unfortunate, because relatively precise quantification is often important to
demonstrate resource needs and compel appropriate action.
And in no circumstances is this tension between the costs and benefits of good chemistry
more acute than during a real time chemistry excursion. When cycle chemistry indicators go bad
during operation the pressure to rectify the problem can be enormous. At the same time the
pressures to stay online can be equally strong, and plant management and staff are very often
caught in a serious quandary. There are both risks and benefits to either option, and sorting these
out can be a challenge.
Such situations are made even more difficult because there is very little organized experience
base in the power generation industry on the dollar impacts of chemistry excursions. In every
real-time excursion situation there are simply too many unknowns for a precise assessment of
cost impacts, so chemists and operators have only their own experience and potentially industry
history to guide them as to the possible impacts.
Experience and history taken together form the basis of so-called expert judgement, a critical
but sometimes misunderstood skill set. It is expert judgement finally, that is in many cases the
only rationale available for good decision-making regarding real-time chemistry excursions.
Unfortunately expert judgement is also sometimes mistrusted by the resource
allocation/budgeting process due to the perception that it lacks objectivity. This is very often the
quandary facing not only cycle chemistry issues but other related power plant fundamentals as
well.

1-1

EPRI Licensed Material

Introduction

In real-time excursion situations there are two difficulties. Chemists and operators sometimes
lack even a basic framework for evaluating costs and benefits, and for communicating among
each other. In other words, the cost-benefit model is often lacking or not well understood.
Secondly, even when the cost-benefit framework is well in hand, the process of estimating cost
and benefit impacts is difficult, subject to much second-guessing, and riddled with uncertainty.
Cost and benefit impacts include both near-term acute effects such as investigation and repair
costs and forced outage costs as well as longer-term effects such as the repair and/or
replacement of major components that may have been damaged over a very long time frame.
It is in the area of longterm chronic damage to components where there is virtually no industrywide information on cause and effect. While this is a very complex and multi-dimensional
problem, the research effort described herein has begun development of an organized experience
base to track such longterm costs and how they relate to degree and severity of chemistry
excursions.
This document describes an overall approach to represent the cost and benefit impacts of realtime chemistry excursions, and the mitigation of potential responses. This methodology builds
directly on the underlying guidance embodied in the EPRI cycle chemistry guidelines and in the
ChemExpert software, and extends this body of guidance to incorporate dollar impacts to the
extent possible. As suggested above a major part of this extension is an attempt to statistically
estimate longterm cost impacts due to major component damage, an area virtually unstudied to
date.
Following is a discussion of the underlying ideas. In the next Section the underlying design and
modeling considerations are presented, and the critical importance of longterm damage potential
is discussed. In Section 3 a discussion of the statistical estimation process for analyzing
longterm damage potential is illustrated, and first stage results are shown. Finally in a
concluding Section some recommendations for further research and ongoing data collection are
offered.

1-2

EPRI Licensed Material

2
METHODOLOGY DESIGN

In the following discussion a comprehensive framework is formulated for valuing costs and
benefits of a real-time chemistry excursion. While none of the formulation below is surprising or
counter-intuitive, it is helpful as a first step to identify and list all the potential sources of value
and cost that may arise during a real-time excursion, for subsequent use as a checklist by
chemists and operators. In the heat and pressure of a crisis there is often neither the time nor the
inclination for thorough analysis, so having such a checklist identified beforehand can be of
potential value in many circumstances.
For either a severe acute excursion or a longterm low-level chronic situation, the basic decision
is the same. Keep running and take a chance, or stop and fix the problem. In reality these two
stark options constitute an extreme oversimplification, as there will be in most cases a variety of
gradations, nuances and interim options. This simple formulation is a starting point; it can be
made richer and more complex as required in any specific situation, but the basic tradeoff is not a
mystery.
Further, there will be impacts (costs and benefits) from either decision taken, and these impacts
will be more or less uncertain, both as to magnitude and timing. In general the impacts from a
controlled shutdown will involve clear and certain cost impacts investigation costs and perhaps
repair costs once a problem is identified, as well as revenues lost during downtime.
The impacts of continuing operations are typically more difficult to pin down. There is under
continuing operation the potential for a forced shutdown, due to a tube failure or a related upset,
but just when even if - such an outage might occur (and how severe it will be) is impossible to
predict with certainty. It is likely that, should such an outage occur, it will be more severe than
under the controlled shutdown alternative above, but this is far from certain. Also it is likely that
continuing operation will increase the risk of longterm damage, but this is also highly uncertain.
Table 2-1 below summarizes some of these considerations.

2-1

EPRI Licensed Material

Methodology Design
Table 2-1
Decision Alternatives in the Event of a Chemistry Excursion

Option 1
Keep operating the unit

Consequences
There is a chance this will lead to
real-time failure of some kind,
forced outage, repair, etc.
There is a chance this will lead to
longterm damage, major repair,
extended outage costs, etc.

Some good bets...

Chances increase as the length
and severity of the excursion
grows

Option 2
Shut down, investigate, repair

Consequences
This leads (with certainty) to
outage and repair costs

Some good bets...

Outage length and repair cost is
likely to be milder if the shutdown
is controlled
The longterm damage is
presumably less likely if
corrections are made in a timely
manner

Probably the most intractable unknown in all of this is the degree of longterm damage that an
untreated excursion situation may do to equipment or components, and when such damage will
manifest. This issue will be discussed in depth below and in the next Section.
This picture is also dynamic, in that these types of incidents must be evaluated over and over
again as excursions ebb and flow over a period of time. The impacts from either decision will
evolve as time moves on, and the tradeoffs will change continually, literally hour to hour in the
case of a severe excursion. Given that an excursion occurs:

a clear decision in hour 4 (keep running)

may become much more murky by hour 24 or 48 (running risks may have increased but the
market is still lucrative)

then much clearer again by hour 150 (damage potential is accumulating quickly, and the
power market has cooled considerably).

The evolving dynamics of each situation must be incorporated as well.

It is typically the low-level chronic or intermittent excursion that poses the more difficult
dilemma. An acute excursion by its very severity leaves little room for tradeoff; mitigation must
be undertaken and the root cause must be eliminated, or serious damage (and serious expense)
will almost certainly and rapidly ensue. Low level contamination, on the other hand, is
insidious. It is typically just under the radar, usually intermittent but persistent, difficult to
diagnose and to eliminate, and often exhibits no effects whatsoever for some time. But often
these are the excursions that accumulate over time and precipitate seven-to-eight figure repair
bills down the road.
The discussions below try to illuminate these and other issues, and offer some ideas for solution.

2-2

EPRI Licensed Material

Methodology Design

Severity of Excursion Episodes and Implications

As discussed in more depth in a previous report (EPRI TR-1004935), EPRI has over a number of
years published a series of Cycle Chemistry Guideline documents for each of the popular water
treatments in modern use around the world. These include all-volatile treatment (AVT),
oxygenated treatment (OT), and several varieties of phosphate treatment, among others. These
documents are currently in the process of being revised and updated, from their original
publication period in the early 1990s. These guidelines are in their turn used as the basis for
limit and threshold settings in the ChemExpert software1.
In each of these guidelines there is a defined relationship between the degree of excursion and a
recommendation as to a) length of continued safe operation, b) when to shut down and fix the
problem, and c) the likely damage consequences of ignoring the problem. This relationship can
be different depending on a) the type of unit and water treatment, b) the indicator of interest and
c) where the measurement is taken. Further, the indicators and the information they convey to
operators interact in complex ways to paint a picture of what is actually occurring, so often a
diagnosis requires looking at multiple indicators.
These guidelines form the basis for a set of recommendations about operating under both acute
and chronic excursion conditions, across a wide range of boiler and water treatment types within
fossil power plants. In general the nature of these recommendations is go/no go, rather than one
of nuance or tradeoff. The guidelines say, as an example, that a level one excursion allows
operation for up to two weeks, then shutdown is recommended (See Table 2-2 below, reproduced
from EPRI TR-1004187, November 2002).
The guidelines dont, on the other hand, offer any sense of the costs of compliance versus the
costs of delaying shutdown by an hour, a day or a week, for example. At this level the choice is
absolute compliance or the black hole.
Nonetheless there is an implication within the guidelines that longer operation during excursion
conditions increases the risk of something bad happening, either in real time or in the longer
term. The exact quantitative nature of this relationship has never been studied in detail, but
qualitatively this causation is generally accepted in the industry.

1 Other, more unit and company specific guidelines could also be used. The important point in this discussion is the
structure.

2-3

EPRI Licensed Material

Methodology Design

Table 2-2
EPRI Chemistry Guidelines
Cation Conductivity at Economizer Inlet (all-ferrous baseload drum unit)
Normal

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

< 0.2

< 0.4

< 0.8

> 0.8

Unlimited

336
(2 wks)

48
(2 days)

Instrument Reading
(S/cm)
Cumulative Annual Hours of Safe
Operation

In essence, the longer a unit is run under excursion conditions (either continuous or intermittent),
the greater the risk of damage and cost. A unit running under a chemistry excursion could
a. experience an upset severe enough to force it offline (such as a tube failure),
b. accumulate enough permanent damage (i.e. hydrogen damage, material stress or fatigue,
turbine component cracks, etc.) to guarantee major repair/replacement of some components
in the future, or
c. both.

The Valuation Impacts of Excursion

The EPRI Guidelines posture is, Once an excursion is detected, you have a grace period
dependent on the severity of the excursion and the indicator being measured. Either fix the
problem during the grace period, or shut down unit operation once the grace period runs out.
The nuances of valuation are not addressed however. During real-time power plant operations,
the following types of questions could be and are routinely asked of chemistry professionals:

How much will it cost to both investigate and fix the problem? Can this be done on-line, or
must we come off-line anyway to make the excursion conditions go away?

What value will we be passing up if we come off-line? What are current market conditions,
and what is our power worth currently?

What types of cost impacts are we risking if we continue operating? How great are those
risks, and when are they likely to occur?

While every situation is unique, and in many cases the relevant cost and value impacts can never
be known with any certainty, there are nonetheless some aspects of valuation that can be
reasonably characterized in a generic way. The most important of these are discussed below.
On the investigate and fix side of this problem the dollar impacts are in many cases reasonably
straightforward. If the decision to shut down and fix the problem is taken, there will most likely
be three distinct impacts.

2-4

Investigation is cheap in comparison with other impacts, but is very often the most
intractable and open-ended part of this. It is not always so easy to determine what is causing
the excursion, nor what would be the best remedy. This initial step takes time and effort, and

EPRI Licensed Material

Methodology Design

does not always end with a clear conclusion. The cost impact of taking this step can
nonetheless usually be estimated, hard though the investigation itself may be to do.

Once investigation points to a particular problem and solution, a repair of some type will
need to be done. This will have a cost impact that someone knowledgeable can typically
estimate directly.

During the investigation and repair downtime opportunity costs will be incurred, meaning
there will be net revenues from generation foregone. These impacts can also be estimated
from the estimated length of the offline period and the production margin assumed.

If the excursions continue and the unit is kept online with no attempt at mitigation, there can be
three potential types of cost impact risk.

There will presumably - be an increasing risk over time that the unit will be forced offline
due to a breakdown or other radical deterioration in conditions. Such a forced outage
outcome may incur (but is not guaranteed to incur) higher repair and recovery costs than if
the shutdown had been controlled. The impacts of such an outage can be estimated directly
by someone knowledgeable, just as above. But the likelihood and timing of this type of
event is highly uncertain.

The same forced outage risk will also precipitate lost generation revenues (opportunity cost
losses) while the unit remains offline for repairs. Again these could be greater than in the
controlled shutdown situation because the offline time might be longer. These impacts are
also not certain, but they are presumably increasingly likely over time as the excursion
conditions persist. Again these impacts can be estimated as above.

Finally there is the very real and insidious, but extremely difficult to quantify, risk of
longterm damage and consequent repair. Again, the longer the excursions go on the more the
risk of this type of damage grows, but the form of such growth and the eventual repair bill
are both bound necessarily to be educated guesses. This particular aspect is discussed in
greater depth below.

The net effect of using the above characterization is the following. When an excursion situation
happens the expected value impacts of continued operation (full potential impact times the risk)
will be quite small early on, then begin to grow at an increasing rate as time passes without
mitigation. The impacts of shutdown/repair, on the other hand, will likely be more or less
constant2 regardless of when the shutdown decision is taken. This can lead to a time pattern of
impacts as represented below in Figure 2-1, indicating that there is a safe window of operation,
but that it wont last forever. The specific values for impacts, degree of curvature and the like
will still be situation-specific and subject to much expert judgement, but the structure of these
tradeoffs seems sensible.

They might, alternatively, cycle among several levels of impact depending on how the time pattern of the
production margin is represented. Given an acute excursion in summer, for example, the impact of shutdown will
likely soften considerably if you can make it to the weekend, or to September 15 say...

2-5

EPRI Licensed Material

Methodology Design

If the Unit is Shut Down in a Controlled Manner...

Expected Cost Impacts

If the Unit Continues to Operate...

Hours Since "Incident" Began

Figure 2-1
Comparing Cost Impacts: Shutdown vs. Continuing Operation

Longterm Damage
This aspect of the formulation is by far the hardest, but also in many ways the most critical.
When chemistry readings go out of normal during operation, a truly devastating possibility may
be that there is some underlying damage being done (under-deposit corrosion, hydrogen damage,
etc.) and that the full extent of the problem will become clear months or years down the road.
The end result of a process like this, if it indeed is going on, is a very large repair bill. This is the
type of scenario that often results in waterwall replacement (usually a millions of dollars
proposition) in a fossil unit, for example.3 The occasional forced outage due to a one-off tube
failure is certainly a problem, and to be avoided if possible, but it does not compare with the
impact of a longterm damage situation.
As stated above, this aspect of the excursion problem has not ever been studied on an industrywide basis, so at present there really is no experience or collective wisdom for chemists and
operators to draw upon. One difficulty has been that the information concerning such longterm
damage incidents is not collected and therefore not available. A second difficulty is that there
are many multiple mechanisms through which longterm damage can occur, and that it would be
very hard to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions even if the data were collected.
Nonetheless, in the next chapter is described an experimental attempt to begin collecting such
information and analyzing it statistically. The hope is that certain conclusions can be
legitimately drawn from this analysis (and increasingly valid as more data is collected over
time), and that a set of industry-wide guidelines for longterm damage expectations might be
developed. Progress to date and preliminary conclusions are discussed in more depth below.

Incidentally, this is also the type of mechanism that can eventually lead to and has lead to the need for entire
steam generator replacements in nuclear units. This is a scenario worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

2-6

EPRI Licensed Material

Methodology Design

If information of the type described above can be collected over time, and relevant statistical
inferences can be drawn from this information, what would such results look like, and of what
use would they be?
As suggested above, chemistry excursions in an operating unit can be of two distinct forms,
acute or chronic. In the acute situation damage is likely being done from the outset, and severe
out-of-spec readings are usually being seen from the outset. This is typically unambiguous and
non-controversial all agree the unit must be brought offline quickly, or the damage will be
catastrophic. The length of the exposure is short.
The chronic situation is much more difficult to sort out. Here the excursion indicators are
typically much lower-level and less critical (pH for example might not appear abnormal at all),
and sometimes perhaps not picked up at all (depending on the level of instrumentation). The
diagnosis and remedy in such situations can also be much more murky, so in many situations this
type of excursion is simply left alone and tolerated, for months if not years. Sometimes these
situations lead to large repair bills down the line, other times they are essentially benign.
Figure 2-2 below illustrates the kinds of expense impacts that can arise from each of these
excursion situations. A severe excursion will necessarily be very short in duration, but might
still cause an enormous repair bill. For the chronic type of excursion, the length of the incident
as well as severity and the indicator being measured - will play a bigger role in determining the
cost, and the exact amount will tend to be far more uncertain. The goal of the statistical analysis
described in the next chapter is to fit rough values to the stylized curves illustrated in Figure 2-2.

High
Cost
Mean
Level 2 Chronic Excursion
90 days - ?

Low

Level 1 Chronic Excursion

30-90 days

Acute Excursion
Level 3 severe short-term

Exceeds Level 2
Long-Term Chronic

Length/Severity
of Excursion

Figure 2-2
Cost Impacts Expected from a Variety of Chemistry Excursions

2-7

EPRI Licensed Material

Methodology Design

If curves like those depicted above existed and were well calibrated (using a pool of industry
data), they could help operators and chemists enormously in making the go/no go decisions
periodically needed when a chemistry excursion happens. Curves of this type or
accompanying tables could provide a currently missing but important piece of information to
the go/no go deliberations, that of typical industry experience under similar situation in the past.
In other words, such curves could demonstrate a precedent, not necessarily for certain cost
impacts but for the increasing risk of such impacts. This information would only be one more
input into an always-difficult deliberation, but it is an input that currently is non-existent.

2-8

EPRI Licensed Material

3
ESTIMATING INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE

In order to test the assumed relationships above, a campaign is currently underway to gather,
evaluate and test collected data from a number of generating units that have experienced a period
of lowlevel excursions. This is a longer-term project, and realistically several dozen data points
will have to be secured to provide any statistical validity, so there are no answers to date.
Nonetheless some of the early profiles can be instructive. The approach and results to date are
reported below.

Cause-and-Effect Assumptions
First it is important to discuss structure. In essence, this exercise seeks to identify a relationship
between chemistry excursion conditions and ultimate repair/rectification expense. The
assumption is that there is an overall cause-and effect that is statistically valid, that longer and
more severe exposure to abnormal chemistry leads to bigger damage and repair. The
relationship is of the general nature illustrated below:
Ultimate Expense = f (Degree of Exposure to Excursion)
and can be estimated statistically as a linear4 relationship of the general form:
Ultimate Expense = Intercept Term + Coefficient * Degree of Exposure to Excursion
Statistical estimation involves the gathering of a reasonably-sized collection of incidents, each
one being characterized by an independent indicator (i.e. degree of exposure) and a dependent
indicator (i.e. ultimate expense). Then a regression analysis (a statistical curve-fitting) is
performed, to determine the intercept and coefficient that best fits the available collection of
incidents.
This assumed relationship is very broad, masking a wide variety of excursion conditions and a
wide variety of damage conditions. There are many specific cause-and-effect mechanisms that
could play out, and each could manifest a very different relationship between excursion and
expense. The challenge is to find and understand the common underlying pattern if indeed there
is one.

The relationship need not be linear it could be log-linear or some other similar transformation but linear is
typically where statistical analysis begins. Often the best form of the relationship is revealed by testing how each
tramsformation fits the data.

3-1

EPRI Licensed Material

Estimating Industry Experience

Not all excursion situations are equal; an elevated cation conductivity reading may be of
concern, but not the same degree of concern as a severly reduced pH reading. Abnormal oxygen
readings are conditions to be avoided, but they do not pose the same type of threat as abnormal
sodium readings, for example. Some excursion conditions may lead to tube failure relatively
quickly, an annoying but hardly devastating expense burden. Others may lead to turbine
deposition and capacity loss, or to the need for periodic chemical cleaning, and still others may
lead in the longer-term to irreversible types of component damage costing many millions of
dollars. It is also true that some excursion conditions may be completely benign, depending on
other underlying mechanisms at work in any particular generating unit cycle.
The state of field information on these topics is also very imperfect today, making it even
tougher to draw cause-and-effect inferences. First of all very few instances of such cause-andeffect relationships have even been collected to date. It has been only in the last decade or so
that power plants have gathered and archived instrument readings regularly, and this practice is
still spotty even today. It is even more rare to find a situation of extensive damage and repair
documented along with excursion history, so the available data pool is still quite thin. Finally,
the degree of instrumentation coverage in power plants worldwide is very uneven. Even where
excursion history has been collected it is hit-or-miss, depending on which instruments and
collection points have been in place. All in all, it is a very mixed bag.

Massaging the Data

The above difficulties suggest a need to process the raw data coming from the field in a number
of specific ways. Ideally what is needed is a clear, simple relationship between length and
severity of excursion, and damage expenses. Given that the raw data is so heterogeneous in the
indicators measured and in the location of the measurements, some attempt must first be made to
aggregate the raw information into a set of indices. The approach is explained below.
The nature of the excursion data being collected is illustrated in Table 3-1 below.

3-2

EPRI Licensed Material

Estimating Industry Experience

Table 3-1
Examples of Field Data Heterogeneity
Observation 1
Representative
Indicators &
Collection Points

pH in boiler feedwater
dissolved oxygen in
condensate

Observation 2
cation conductivity at
drum
cation conductivity at
condensate pump
discharge
dissolved oxygen at
condensate pump
discharge
pH at drum

Observation 3
pH in boiler water
cation conductivity in
boiler water
silica in boiler water
phosphate in boiler
water
cation conductivity in
feedwater
(economizer inlet)
pH at economizer inlet
dissolved oxygen at
economizer inlet
hydrazine at
economizer inlet

Frequency of
Collection

every 2 hours

every 2 hours

once a day

Length of Sample

1 year

5 years

4 months

Eventual Damage

boiler cleaning

waterwall
replacements

tube failure; boiler

cleaning; lost
generation

Cost of Damage

~ $280,000

~ $5,400,000

~ $850,000

In addition, these data examined in detail usually reveal a sporadic pattern of excursion. Some
observations are normal, others exhibit a seemingly random pattern of excursion severity (Level
1 through Level 3), and there typically are no obvious trends. Figure 3-2 presents a detailed
excerpt showing the random nature of the excursion information.

3-3

EPRI Licensed Material

Estimating Industry Experience

Table 3-2
A Chronological Look at Field Data
pH at High-Pressure Heaters
Control Limit is 8.8 to 9.5
04-Oct-02 00:00:00
04-Oct-02 02:00:00
04-Oct-02 04:00:00
04-Oct-02 06:00:00
04-Oct-02 08:00:00
04-Oct-02 10:00:00
04-Oct-02 12:00:00
04-Oct-02 14:00:00
04-Oct-02 16:00:00
04-Oct-02 18:00:00
04-Oct-02 20:00:00
04-Oct-02 22:00:00
05-Oct-02 00:00:00
05-Oct-02 02:00:00
05-Oct-02 04:00:00
05-Oct-02 06:00:00
05-Oct-02 08:00:00
05-Oct-02 10:00:00
05-Oct-02 12:00:00
05-Oct-02 14:00:00
05-Oct-02 16:00:00
05-Oct-02 18:00:00
05-Oct-02 20:00:00
05-Oct-02 22:00:00

9.330
9.351
9.337
9.339
9.338
9.317
9.342
8.495
8.258
8.304
8.289
8.219
8.236
8.262
8.223
8.098
7.767
7.701
7.667
8.164
8.322
9.028
9.051
9.105

Condensate Dissolved Oxygen

Control Limit is less than 20
49.111
49.305
49.246
49.254
49.192
49.232
49.196
49.168
49.135
49.236
49.153
49.198
49.065
49.178
49.211
0.081
0.005
0.013
0.000
0.081
0.031
0.000
0.047
0.000

In order to consolidate diverse data of the type displayed into tractable information, an indexing
scheme was adopted. The indexing approach was based on the following premises:

Generally an index is simply a weighted-average of some related but heterogeneous

indicators.

In this case one heterogeneous collection is the array of indicators represented in the raw
data. As suggested above these diverse indicators are quite variable in their importance, and
in how accurately they might predict the degree of eventual expense that could be incurred.
Such variable importance (e.g. pH more important than cation conductivity) should be
reflected in the index.

Another heterogeneous collection is of course the excursion level of each of the readings. A
Level 3 reading should make a strong explanatory contribution to an eventual repair bill,
more so than a Level 1 reading. This difference in weight should be incorporated into the
index.

At this point in time the data collection effort has made only minimal progress, so only a relative
handful of observations has been secured. This necessarily makes the entire data massaging
process preliminary as well. Undoubtedly as more observations are collected in future years and
3-4

EPRI Licensed Material

Estimating Industry Experience

incorporated into the growing knowledge base on this topic, the character of the indexing process
will be refined and made more robust. Nonetheless what follows can be viewed as indicative
albeit preliminary - of what the process will produce.
Within the incident information collected so far, there are at least three indicators that are
common across all data points. These are 1) feedwater cation conductivity (typically at the
economizer inlet), 2) feedwater dissolved oxygen, and 3) feedwater pH. As indicated above
there are other measurements available, in some cases many others, but these three have the one
advantage of being common across all incidents collected to date. These may not be the best
three indicators to ideally reveal what is going on in these incidents, but they do possess the key
virtue of being available. These three then become the starting point.
Additionally there is degree of severity. The data on these incidents reveal a seemingly random
pattern of excursion over weeks, months and even years in several cases, and the severity
bounces from normal to Level 3 with no obvious rhyme or reason either. Further, the total
length of the excursion may be relevant in explaining the eventual repair bill, as might the
number of excursion periods and their relative severity over the total excursion period.
The overall structure adopted to accommodate this diverse information set is illustrated in Table
3-3 below. First the common indicators must be combined, then the severity readings must be
combined using appropriate weights, into an overall indicator for each incident. The weights
illustrated in Table 3-3 are merely suggestions at this point; they will be refined over time as
more data becomes available and the statistical fit of the relationship to the data is improved.
The composite indicator represents a single value that measures in a summary way the degree of
excursion experienced over the period.
Table 3-3
Representative Raw Data and Weighting Scheme
Days in Excursion Status
Incident 1
Incident 2
Incident 3
Indicator
Cation Conductivity
wt.
0.1
Dissolved Oxygen
wt.
0.1
pH
wt.

0.8

L1
L2
L3
L1
L2
L3
L1
L2
L3

wt
1
2
5
1
2
5
1
2
5

73
0
0
36
0
0
2
0
0

44
29
0
242
148
0
562
72
0

236
148
12
41
343
0
0
0
0

Weighted Days in Excursion

Composite Indicator

12.5

628.8

131.9

3-5

EPRI Licensed Material

Estimating Industry Experience

Second the length of the excursion period itself is a potential explanatory indicator as well. The
overall excursion length might be combined with the excursion indicator to produce one
composite explanatory variable, or the analysis could employ the two separately. Finally, the
total cost of repair or rectification for each incident is needed as the dependent variable. For the
three representative incidents represented in Table 3-3 above, the total length of the excursion
and cost are shown in Table 3-4 below.
Table 3-4
Total Days in Excursion and Total Rectification Cost
Total Days in Excursion

80

Total Cost Estimated

$121,000

1545
$5,400,000

390
$8,000,000

Statistical Estimation
Finally, after the data manipulation described above, it becomes possible to specify a statistical
relationship amenable to estimation across multiple instances or data points. Each instance of
excursion i.e. three months worth of excursion data from a particular unit, combined with the
eventual repair bill constitutes an individual data point, and so far only a nominal number have
been collected. The eventual idea however, is to estimate a regression equation once sufficient
data points have been secured. The standard form of a regression equation is illustrated below:
Dependent Variable =

Intercept Term + Coefficient i * Independent Variable i

Damage Incurred =

A + B 1* Weighted Days in Excursion +

B 2 * Total Length of Excursion Episode

The above form is known as a linear regression equation, and it is the most common approach to
estimating a statistical fit between dependent and independent data. Other forms are also
possible, most notably including a log-linear form (take the logarithm of each set of data, which
was done for this example), depending on how the data line up and which approach yields the
best statistical fit. In statistical regression analysis it is most common and most prudent to let the
data dictate the optimal form of the equation.
In this example a further simplification was performed as well. The two independent variables
were aggregated into one composite, to further simplify both estimation and explanation of the
results. The composite variable was defined to be:
Percentage of Days in Excursion
= Weighted Days in Excursion /Total Length of Excursion Episode

3-6

EPRI Licensed Material

Estimating Industry Experience

The final form of the regression equation then becomes:

or5

Ln (Damage Incurred) = A + B * Ln (Percentage of Days in Excursion),

Damage Incurred = Exp (A + B * Ln (Percentage of Days in Excursion))
After estimation the final equation appears below:

Damage Incurred = Exp ( 8.83 + 1.15 * Ln (Percentage of Days in Excursion))

Figure 3-1 below illustrates the curve derived from this preliminary equation, which can be used
to predict the level of eventual repair expense that might be expected given a level of chemistry
excursion (including both length and severity, as discussed above).
While the results depicted in Figure 3-1 are preliminary and illustrative only, they do indicate the
eventual form of what will come out of this analysis. Given sufficient data points in future as
defined above, a representative curve could be developed that would have true predictive
capability. Such a curve would provide power plant chemists and operators with a rough rule of
thumb for gauging the damage they might be in for under excursion conditions, and how these
expenses might evolve over time. As discussed above, a curve of this type if sufficiently
representative would be an important addition to the decision-making toolkit.
$8,000,000

$7,000,000

Damages Incurred

$6,000,000

$5,000,000
Fitted Value of Damage
Specific Incidents
$4,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Total Cumulative Days in Excursion State

Figure 3-1
Damage Expense Related to Excursion State

Note that the natural logarithm (Ln) and the exponential (Exp) are mirror images of each other. If A = Ln (B), then
B = Exp (A).

3-7

EPRI Licensed Material

4
ONGOING DATA COLLECTION AND NEXT STEPS

From this point on the main challenge to finishing this effort will be to identify and collect more
data points. As discussed above, to date only a handful of excursion experiences have been
collected, due to a variety of factors. Over time, the expectation is that there will be other
incidents that surface, and these can gradually be incorporated into the analysis. This is expected
to be a longer-term, lower-effort activity, as such incidents will become available only
sporadically as time goes on.
In order to make the process incrementally easier for chemists and other power plant staff, two
forms have been developed to facilitate this type of data collection. The first is a standard
reporting form in the event of a tube failure. As this is a relatively common occurrence, using a
form such as this should not pose an unusual burden for plant staff. As EPRI staff are regularly
in the field discussing chemistry issues with power plant staffs all over the world, they anticipate
the use of this form and the encouragement of this type of reporting. Over time, the expectation
is that stories will accumulate, and provide an ever broader and deeper pool of incidents and
information to use.
The second form is a variation on the same theme, focusing more broadly than just on boiler tube
failures. The second form accommodates any and all excursion incidents resulting eventually in
expenditure needs for rectification or repair. Admittedly this is a harder set of information for
plant staffs to even identify, much less record. It requires tracking over a longer period of time,
and in many cases can only be identified in retrospect. Gathering such information will be
difficult, but it will also be useful if it can be done.
Taken together, these two forms represent an attempt to facilitate the data gathering necessary in
future to broaden the information set and provide substance to the analysis discussed above. The
examples illustrated below are still in draft form, and over time they will be refined through field
use and feedback from plant staffs.
The expectation is that over time enough excursion information (as described above) can be
gleaned from the power generation industry world-wide to produce an analysis that is accurate,
indicative and trustworthy. As with any other work in progress, the ultimate success of this
venture is still unknown.

4-1

EPRI Licensed Material

Ongoing Data Collection and Next Steps

Source Name
Company Name
Contact Name
Boiler Type
Drum Pressure (PSI)

Date of Report
Email Address
T-Fired

Cyclone
Once thru
Steam Flow (Kpounds/hr)

Other

Failure Location
Failure Root Cause
Brief Description

Material that Failed

Chemistry Excursion
Description

Hours

Accumulative Duration

Days

Weeks

Number of Instances
EPRI GL Level

Level 1

Cost of Repair

$1 to 50 K
$51 to 250 K
$251 to 800 K
$801 to 1.5 M
GT $1.5 M

Level 2

Above Level 2

Lost generation Cost

$1 to 50 K
$51 to 250 K
$251 to 800 K
$801 to 1.5 M
GT $1.5 M

Comments

Date Received
Quality of Report
Comments

Good

Figure 4-1
Boiler Tube Failure Information Report

4-2

Date added DB
Average

Poor

EPRI Licensed Material

Ongoing Data Collection and Next Steps

Section I. Identification
Source Name
Company Name
Contact Name
Boiler Type
Drum Pressure (PSI)

Date of Report
Email Address
T-Fired

Cyclone
Once thru
Steam Flow (Kpounds/hr)

Other

Section II. Excursion Information

Chemistry Excursion
Description

Hours

Accumulative Duration

Days

Weeks

Number of Instances
EPRI GL Level

Level 1

Level 2

Above Level 2

(Please attach a spreadsheet containing the excursion history and readings of key indicators)
Section III. Costs
Cost of Rectification
(Repair, Cleaning, Major Capital
Outlay)

$1 to 50 K
$51 to 250 K
$251 to 1M
$1M to 3 M
GT $3 M

Lost generation Cost

$1 to 50 K
$51 to 250 K
$251 to 1M
$1M to 3 M
GT $3 M

Comments

Section IV. Internal Use

Date Received
Quality of Report
Comments

Good

Date added DB
Average

Poor

Figure 4-2
Chemistry Excursion Information Report

4-3

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 companys 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.

SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE
WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO
NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI
AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package
only for your own benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package:
(I) your company (at any site owned or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and
(III) a consultant to your company or related entities, if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to
disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for its own benefit or the benefit of any party
other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between
most U.S. EPRI member utilities and EPRI. Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License
Agreement may get one on request.
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by
United States and international copyright laws.You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce,
translate or modify this package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information
contained in this package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless
such use is with the prior written permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized
disclosure or use of this package. Except as specified above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents,
copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of
this package.
4.TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this
package. EPRI has the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any
term or condition of this agreement. Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of
nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI,ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION 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 PACKAGE, 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 PARTYS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS PACKAGE
IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USERS 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
PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and
you agree not to export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California between California residents.

About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
the global energy and energy services industry.
U.S. electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve todays toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World

8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement
between you and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No
waiver, variation or different terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.

Program:

1008085

Boiler and Turbine Steam and Cycle Chemistry

2004 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research
Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com