MINUTES OF ROC MEETING Technical Committee on Multiple Burner Boilers Fall 2010 cycle SRP PERA Club 1 E. Continental Drive Tempe, AZ 85281 March 30, 2010 Attendance: Principal Members/Staff: Harold Skip Yates, Chair HRY, Inc., MI Bernie Hrul, Secretary Allen Bradley Co., GA Denise Beach, NFPA Staff Liaison, MA Frank Bennett Mirant Mid-Atlantic, MD Dale Dressel Solutia, Inc., MO (via teleconference) John Eibl The DuPont Co., TN (via teleconference) Dale Evely Southern Company Services, AL Kenneth Frazier - Salt River Project, AZ Gordon Gaetke The Dow Chemical Co., TX (via teleconference) Kris Gamble Black & Veatch Corp., KS Ken Hurlburt, Babcock Power, Inc., MA David King - American Electric Power Services, OH (via teleconference) Dan Lee ABB Inc., OH (via teleconference) Peter McKenna Stone & Webster, Inc., MA (via teleconference) Lalit Mehta Iris Systems Inc., BC Canada Terry Nelson Yokogawa Corp. of America, TX Mike Polagye FM Global, MA Thomas D. Russell Honeywell Inc., TX Franklin Switzer S-afe, Inc., IN (via teleconference) Joe Vavrek Sargent & Lundy, LLC, IL (via teleconference) Mike Walz Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., MO Henry Wong Washington Group International, NJ (via teleconference) Allan Zeke Zadiraka (via teleconference) Alternate Members: John Bollinger The Babcock & Wilcox Co., OH Steven Riviere Southern Company Services, GA (via teleconference) Guest: Joe Fehr Sega Inc., KS Gerald Gilman SIS-Tech, OH Roy Reeves Emerson Process Management, PA 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 AM. 2. Welcome. The Committee Chair welcomed the members and guests. Self introductions were made and attendance recorded. 3. Minutes Approval. The minutes from the June 17-18, 2009 ROP meeting in Quincy MA were approved as amended. See Committee web page to view amended copy. 4. NFPA Staff Report. The NFPA Staff Liaison reviewed the meeting policies and procedures. The current remaining cycle dates for NFPA-85 are:
TC ROC completion deadline April 9, 2010 ROC published and Posted August 27, 2010 Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) deadline October 22, 2010 Issuance of Standard with no controversy December 14, 2010 Note that Attachment A of ROP Agenda for this item, January 28, 2011, is incorrect. NFPA WSCE Meeting with NITMAM June 12-16, 2011 Issuance of Standard with controversy July 29, 2011 5. Old Business Fuel valve proving systems is on the Agenda as Item 8 and will be discussed at that time. No other old business remained from the June 17-18, 2009 ROP meeting in Quincy MA. 6. New Business A. BCS-MBB Committee Scope and Document Scope were discussed. Consensus is that no changes to the Committee Scope should be done as the current scope allows for the addition of other fuels to the document scope at a future date. Gerald Gilman volunteered to work on a task force when created for the addition of waste gas fuel based on experience in investigating losses due to firing of waste gas fuels. B. Public comments were reviewed; see the Fall 2010 ROC for TC-MBB committee action. C. Creation of Committee Comments. i. Flue gas analyzers were discussed. See the Fall 2010 ROC Log # 24 for TC-MBB committee action on Proposal 85-126(54). ii. TCC comments and actions were reviewed: See the Fall 2010 ROC Log # 9 for TC-MBB committee action on Proposal 85-68(60). See the Fall 2010 ROC for TC-MBB committee action Log # 21 for Proposals 85-75(81) and 85-117(62). See Attachment A for TC-MBB committee comment on Proposal 85-68(60). iii. The following paragraphs were noted by TC-MBB for development of committee proposals at the Pre-ROP meeting for the next (2015) revision cycle. In 6.6.5.2.2.2 it is the opinion of some of the TC members that item C (Intermediate settings shall not be used) refers only to item B (Reburn safety shutoff valves shall be fully open or completely closed). If this is the correct intent of the requirement, it is not clearly conveyed as written. Similarly in 6.6.5.2.2.3, item B refers only to item A. The same is true for 6.7.5.3.3.3, 6.7.5.2.2.3, 6.8.5.2.2.2, and 6.8.5.2.2.3 Similar requirements with alternate wording are in 6.6.5.2.12.2. 6.6.5.2.2.2 The reburn injection rate shall be regulated within the design limits of the reburn equipment. (A) Air flow lead and lag shall be used during changes in the reburn fuel injection rate. (B) Reburn safety shutoff valves shall be fully open or completely closed. (C) Intermediate settings shall not be used. 6.6.5.2.2.3 The firing rate shall not be regulated by varying the fuel to individual burners by means of the individual burner safety shutoff valve(s). (A) The individual burner safety shutoff valve(s) shall be fully open or completely closed. (B) Intermediate settings shall not be used.
6.6.5.2.12.2 Individual burner safety shutoff valves shall be fully open or fully closed and shall not be placed in intermediate positions to regulate duct burner firing rate. 6.7.5.2.2.2 The reburn injection rate shall be regulated within the design limits of the reburn equipment. (A) Airflow lead and lag shall be used during changes in the reburn fuel injection rate. (B) Reburn safety shutoff valves shall be fully open or completely closed. (C) Intermediate settings shall not be used. 6.7.5.2.2.3 The firing rate shall not be regulated by varying the fuel to individual burners by means of the individual burner safety shutoff valve(s). (A) The individual burner safety shutoff valve(s) shall be fully open or completely closed. (B) Intermediate settings shall not be used. 6.8.5.2.2.2 The reburn injection rate shall be regulated within the design limits of the reburn equipment. (A) Airflow lead and lag shall be used during changes in the reburn fuel injection rate. (B) Reburn shutoff valves shall be fully open or completely closed. (C) Intermediate settings shall not be used. 6.8.5.2.2.3 The firing rate shall not be regulated by varying the fuel to individual burners by means of the individual burner shutoff valve(s). (A) Individual burner shutoff valve(s) shall be fully open or completely closed. (B) Intermediate settings shall not be used. A committee comment was created for Table 6.4.2.3.1(a). See Fall 2010 ROC CC-1 for TC- MBB committee comment. 7. BCS-MBB Aluminum Material Task Group Franklin Switzer, chairman of BCS-MBB Aluminum Material Task Group, updated TC-MBB on the task group action. The task group is mainly focusing on aluminum threaded joints. The task group is reaching out to Insurers and others for information regarding experience with aluminum valves and fittings. The task group will develop a report to TC-MBB as to What the problem is with aluminum fittings and recommendations that TC-MBB would send out to other committees within NFPA to develop a consistent approach and allow the various Technical Committees to address specifically in the standard or chapter within their scope. Currently there is a meeting tentatively scheduled for April 9, 2010 to pull together information from the various documents regarding material. 8. Fuel Valve Proving Systems Task Group It was recalled that the valve proving systems currently available use aluminum construction. Other weaknesses of the systems were discussed. It was agreed that we do not need a task group for this. If any proposals come in regarding including valve proving systems within the MBB chapter, they can be dealt with at that time.
9. Other Items There is currently a Proposed TIA for NFPA 54 regarding gas line purging. The TC-MBB will be represented on the current FUN-TC task group by Franklin Switzer. Fundamentals Committee actions were distributed to the TC-MBB previously and reviewed at this meeting. No actions of the Fundamentals Committee require action from the TC-MBB for the current cycle. 10. Future meetings Pre ROP meeting tentatively set for Fall 2011; at NFPA Quincy MA or Kansas City. Possibly meet via conference call or meeting Fall of 2012. ROP meeting to be June 2013, location to be determined. 11. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM on March 30, 2010. Respectfully Submitted Bernard B Hrul Secretary, Technical Committee on Multiple Burner Boilers
Response to TCC Action on ROP Log #60 When the TCC met following the TC ROP meetings, the proposal met strong opposition and the following request was sent to the technical committee: TCC Action: The TCC requests that the BCS-MBB TC specifically address Mr. Gamble s negative ballot comments during the preparation of the ROC report. The TCC recommends further consideration be given to the issues of lack of an emergency bypass and natural ventilation during loss of power events. Response: The original proposal was generated by a group of individuals thru several telephone conferences. It was written up, submitted, thoroughly reviewed and commented upon in committee where it was eventually accepted in principle, and approved by the committee in general with 28 votes affirmative, and 2 ballots not returned. It was noted at that time that: Members report that the concepts incorporated in the proposal have been used successfully in the field. The TC Members feel that the proposal addresses the issues of lack of draft due to back-end environmental control equipment and multiple units with common tie points. This also addresses issues where environmental permits prohibit bypasses around environmental control equipment. However, during the balloting process, one of the voters commented in the affirmative that: I do not agree that many of the JBR type FGD systems that have been installed in the US eliminate the stack draft and block the flue gas flow following a loss of power event, as noted in the proposed appendix material. TC Response: It was never the intention of the TC to address a specific type of equipment. The problem has been known to occur in other types of FGD systems, and is not limited to the JBR type. ROC Log #14 has removed references to equipment that restricts flow, and therefore any perceived limitation to JBR type FGD systems. The majority of these systems ( DP&L, AEP, AECI, Southern Co, Plant Crist) are equipped with an emergency bypass to enable gas path purge. TC Response: The new A.6.5.3.2.3 annex material in ROC Log #14 addresses the possible use of bypass to establish an open flow path. I would not recommend that NFPA approve of the use of this type of FGD system without emergency provisions for natural ventilation during loss of power events. The cost of these bypass provisions are not excessive. TC Response: The new A.6.5.3.2.3 informs users that bypass may be used, but the TC opted not to require bypass as it may conflict with regulatory requirements for emissions control equipment.
CEMS are installed in exhaust stacks that monitor the ultimate flue gas emissions so will detect excessive SO2 or other flows from leaking bypass systems. TC Response: The mandatory text doesn t require a bypass, therefore the potential for a leaking bypass is not addressed. Provisions to enable safe shutdown during emergency conditions should not be eliminated by emissions regulations. TC Response: The TC believes that the revised requirements provide minimum safety levels for emergency shutdown.