Integrated Design and Construction for Cost Effective

SCR Projects
R.A. Kuchner
J.A. Hines
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.

Presented to: BR-1733

Power-Gen International 2002
December 10-12, 2002
Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.

Abstract
The retrofitting of power plants with NOx control technolo-
gies is a cost-intensive undertaking facing many utilities. Key
to controlling the economic impact to the utility is the effective
execution of these projects. B&W has successfully designed and
installed a number of Selective Catalytic Reduction systems for
both gas- and coal-fired boilers. The success of these installa-
tions is a direct result of the key decisions made during and the
integrated techniques applied to the design and installation of
these systems. The systems are comprised predominantly of
flues, ducts, structural steel, reactors, catalyst, and ammonia
systems, but may also need to include modifications to the ex-
isting boiler or its ancillary equipment.
The magnitude of the project can range from 10s to upwards
of 100 million dollars depending on the size of the units, the
extent of the modifications needed, and site-specific conditions
and requirements. The cost of the engineered equipment and
the associated cost of installation are about equal in magnitude.
Most system installations are retrofit projects. Optimizing the
design of these unit-specific systems and the associated instal-
lation of these large components in typically restricted spaces
during the minimum duration outage(s) involve a number of
compromises and decisions. Typically these projects involve
hundreds or thousands of tons of structural and plate steel and
hundreds of thousands of manhours of field labor. The deci-
sions and the process used to orchestrate them into an effective
project will be discussed and placed into an economic perspec-
tive. The paper will highlight some of the key opportunities for
controlling Selective Catalytic Reduction project costs.
Introduction
The promulgation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
caused many fossil-fired electric generating plants to install or
plan for the installation of Selective Catalytic Reduction sys-
tems (SCRs) on their existing boilers to reduce the emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOx). These systems are typically installed in the
flue gas stream between the boiler’s economizer and air heater.
The systems consist of a reactor(s) housing the catalyst, flues or
flue modifications to deliver and return the flue gases to the reac-
tor, control dampers or bypasses, the structural steel required to
support the new equipment, ammonia delivery system, and possi-
bly modifications to the boiler or its ancillary equipment to deliver
flue gases within the required temperature range. Boiler and ancil-
lary equipment modifications might also include the costly stiff-
ening of the boiler enclosure, flues and precipitator.
For many natural-gas-fired installations, the catalyst required
to achieve the desired or required level of NOx reduction may
be small enough to be installed in a flue section between the
boiler and air heater. Often the flue section need only be flared

Babcock & Wilcox 1


Figure 1 In-line, gas-fired SCR installation.
Figure 2 Large, coal-fired SCR installation.
2 Babcock & Wilcox
out and the reactor supported. Figure 1 illustrates an in-line,
gas-fired installation. The generating capacity of this unit is 340
MWe. For most coal-fired applications, the back end of the boiler
must undergo a major revision to enable the installation of the
much larger catalyst-containing reactor(s). Figure 2 illustrates
a large, 900 MWe coal-fired installation.
Except for a few recent new boiler installations, SCR instal-
lations are retrofit projects. These retrofit projects require the
economical integration of the SCR equipment (including the
necessary flues, reactor and structural steel) within the tradi-
tionally congested region between the back of the boiler and
the precipitator. For a quality installation, the SCR must be con-
sidered as part of the entire boiler/air pollution control equip-
ment system. All components must function effectively as an
integrated system. Obviously the performance and function of
the entire system must be accurately considered during the over-
all design process, but these are beyond the focus of this paper.
The economic success of an SCR project is largely depen-
dent on how well the system is arranged and how easily it can
be constructed. Until recently, the cost of engineering and sup-
plying the materials was approximately equal to the cost of erec-
tion. In the last few years, we have been able to lower the cost
of supplying the engineered materials, while experiencing mod-
erately increased costs of field labor. Even though this increased
field labor cost can be offset to some extent by improvements
in labor productivity, a current project model would reveal that
installation costs can now be 55-65 percent of the total project
cost. The delivered material cost is the cost of catalyst, struc-
tural steel, plate work for the flues and reactors, dampers, and po-
tentially fans and air heaters (or modifications thereof). The erec-
tion costs are predominantly craft labor and equipment rentals. The
layout of the existing boiler system and the SCR-related flues, re-
actors and associated structural steel govern the complexity of the
project and significantly impact the erection costs.
These components represent a significant portion of the de-
sign effort, system materials and erection cost, and require close
attention to schedule integration. Installation of the steel, flues
and reactors are the schedule-critical components and usually
require the staged integration of each of these components. For
example, the systems are typically erected by alternately in-
stalling steel, flues, and reactor components until the structure
and major components are in place. The required quantities of
these materials vary considerably from project to project based
on the existing configuration of the boiler, precipitator and stack,
the configuration of the SCR components, and the extent of NOx
reduction required. Table 1 demonstrates some typical steel
quantities for gas- and coal-fired units of various capacities.
To execute a successful SCR project the delicate balanc-
ing of the “scope, schedule and cost” triangle must be man-
aged (see Figure 3).
This balance is best managed by focusing the SCR design
activities on achieving the most efficient SCR construction plan,
while minimizing the material costs. This results in the lowest
overall project cost.
Integrated Design Process
The key steps in designing an SCR retrofit project are:
1. Define the scope—explicitly
2. Define the general arrangement of all components in
concert with the existing structures and equipment
3. Define the construction approach—early in the process
4. Perform joint project management, engineering and con-
struction reviews of the design
5. Iterate through 2, 3 and 4 above, to advance and evolve
the design.
Explicitly defining the scope early in the process and assur-
ing that all project team members share a common understand-
ing of that scope are essential. The scope description and divi-
sion (assignment) of responsibility establishes the course the
project team will travel. The importance of scope definition
becomes magnified when subcontractors are employed, and re-
duces the probability of omitted scope and ineffective hand-
offs. Without an explicit scope definition, developing an inte-
grated project schedule and making sound cost-based decisions
and trade-offs becomes a game of chance. As an adjunct to the
definition of scope, the common spatial understanding of the
location of the new equipment in respect to the existing facili-
Table 1
Typical Quantities (Tons) of Steel for SCR Systems
Gas–fired Units 340 MW e 750 MW e
Structural steel 40 790
Flues / ducts 20 720
Reactor 40 270
Coal-fired Units 270 MW e 900 MW e
Structural steel 850 1800
Flues / ducts 380 700
Reactor 320 840
Babcock & Wilcox
Figure 3 Delicate balance for a successful SCR project.
ties completes the definition of the project for all members of the
design and construction team. Interferences are relatively inex-
pensive to resolve at the design stage, but can be devastating to the
project budget and schedule when first recognized during the con-
struction process.
SCR projects typically span 15 to 30 months from award to
startup; this span is dependent upon the number of units to be
retrofit, the complexity of the installation and the utility’s
planned outage schedule. Retrofit projects are impacted by nu-
merous site-specific constraints that may lengthen the overall
project. Often the tendency is for project management and en-
gineering to initiate the design process and begin the fabrica-
tion of materials, well before the involvement of the construc-
tion manager and/or superintendent. This approach is usually
fraught with future project impediments. Joint planning and
ongoing review of the design by project management, engi-
neering and the erector produce a higher quality, more eco-
nomical and timely project.
Integrating the different perspectives, knowledge and con-
cerns of these three key project disciplines yields signifi-
cant benefits. However, the effort must be a process, not an
event. It must be continuous to advance and evolve the de-
sign to achieve the project goals—high quality product, low
cost and schedule compliance. One joint meeting will start
the process, but a series of periodic meetings generates the
benefits. The significant design and construction decisions
must be made in ways which balance the “scope, schedule
and cost” triangle to benefit not just engineering or the erec-
tor but the overall project.
Some of the key decisions that need to be addressed by the
team are:
• What is the best physical arrangement of the equipment?
• How do we support the equipment?
• Do we use the existing or new steel?
• What gets done pre-outage, during the outage, and post-
outage?
• What are the planned / available outages and the erection
sequence?
• What access exists? What do we do to provide the re-
quired access?
• Do we modularize in the shop, in the field or not at all?
• What is, and how do we manage, the availability of field
labor?
3
 A critical period occurs early in the project when the project
scope, general arrangement, construction approach and sched-
ule decisions are being defined and when the key subcontrac-
tors must be integrated into the project. Two specialized groups
exist at Babcock & Wilcox to assist the project manager by di-
recting the subcontracts with the architect-engineering firm
doing the balance of plant design (foundations, steel, piping,
electrical, etc.), the structural steel fabricator, and flue and re-
actor fabricator(s). One group focuses on technical issues, and
the other focuses on commercial and interface issues. This sup-
port early in the project provides the necessary attention to ef-
fectively address schedule-critical activities during the critical
time frame when resources are typically overloaded. Once these
specialized functions are executed, those persons can leave the
project team and consult as required.
Structural Steel Design
The structural steel needed for an SCR retrofit is significant
because it usually represents a sizeable cost, governs the project
schedule, and when coupled with the flues and the reactor, es-
tablishes the complexity of the project. Once the general ar-
rangements of the flues and reactor are defined, the manner in
which the voluminous flues and the heavy and voluminous re-
actor are supported is a major consideration. The two “options”
for supporting these components are: 1) new, independent steel
or 2) reinforced, existing steel. However, in many instances both
types of steel are needed.
The reactor with its heavy catalyst is usually supported by a
free-standing single tower(s); for the more congested sites, a
bridge consisting of a number of towers and trusses is used to
support it above existing equipment. Some existing conditions
may dictate the installation of the SCR along side the boiler or
precipitator. The flues leading to and from the reactor must be
routed from high within the boiler building to the external SCR.
In this area, the choice is to take advantage of the existing steel
and adequately reinforce it or to integrate new steel (columns and
beams) within the existing building setting. Another consideration
is the foundation requirements, especially within the confines of
the existing structure. Excavating, installing piles and pouring foun-
dations may or may not be practicable depending upon the exist-
ing conditions, the physical layout, and the extent of the modifica-
tions required to accommodate the new loads.
Although the cost per pound for the reinforcing steel may
not be significantly different than that for new steel, the cost of
installing and the risks associated with reinforcing existing steel
are significantly greater than new steel. Reinforcing usually in-
cludes replacing vertical and/or horizontal bracing, as well as
cover plating of existing members. Some erectors estimate that
the cost for installing new steel is 15-20 manhours per ton, while
the cost of reinforcing existing steel with extensive cover plat-
ing may be as great as 120-130 manhours per ton. Weaving the
lengths of cover plating into the existing structure is often a
difficult and time consuming task, gaining access to the steel
usually requires extensive scaffolding, field welding is very la-
bor intensive, and touch-up painting can be quite extensive. A
significant additional cost associated with cover plating is the
removal and reinstallation of the electrical, controls, lighting
and communications cabling and various small-diameter pip-
ing which are normally hung from or attached to the faces of
the structural steel. Other risks are inherently associated with
the extensive use of existing (often 30 to 50 year old) building
4 Babcock & Wilcox
steel. These include: poorly documented changes to the steel
structure over time, physical deterioration of the steel, the cost
of assessing the design margin available in the steel, and the
implications of making changes to steel designed to older “codes”
and having to upgrade the steel to the more recent, more stringent
code. Experience has shown that for jobs involving “new steel”
and “integrating or reinforcing existing steel,” the rework or cor-
rective orders is much higher for the “reused” steel. Typically, 80
percent of the corrective actions on a steel installation are associ-
ated with connecting to or reinforcing the existing steel.
The new steel offers few restrictions, but SCR steel is also
not a “greenfield” installation. The design of this steel still must
contend with the restrictions of existing equipment and the abil-
ity to provide adequate foundations. Obviously the deadweight
(gravity load) of the SCR components is significant, but the
size of the reactors and flues and their exposure to the wind can
provide significant overturning (uplift) forces. New steel does
offer more options for the designer. However, experience dem-
onstrates that input from the steel designer, the erector and the
fabricator are very important during the design phase and for
developing the lowest cost steel design and lowest installation
cost for the project. The decision as to the amount of shop as-
sembly for built-up columns, bents and trusses is critical to
minimizing total overall cost for the customer. Key inputs are
crane lifting capacity at the site and for the specific installation
points, transportation limitations and cost for a particular jobsite,
site access clearances/obstruction considerations, and the opti-
mized breakdown of shop versus field ground assembly.
Again, the integration and optimization of the design of the
structural steel is not accomplished at one meeting, but via the
process of the steel designer, fabricator and erector working
together and evolving the design throughout the design phase
of the project.
Flues and Reactor Design
The flues and reactors needed for an SCR retrofit challenge
the designer and erector because of the large size of these com-
ponents which must be installed in typically very congested
spaces. Layout or routing is one issue and facilitating the effi-
cient and safe installation is another; both must be addressed by
the project team. Flue sizing and layout must address pressure drop,
local pressures, local and average velocities, thermal expansion,
and for coal-fired units, ash entrainment (deposition). The plan-
ning for flue installation must include defining the segmentation
of the flues, sequencing for erection, and determining how and
where to fabricate the segments. Typically the labor in the
fabricator’s shop is considerably less costly than field labor.
The goal is to shop-assemble or ground-assemble in the field
as large a segment as can be lifted and maneuvered into place
through the supporting steel, thus minimizing the much more
difficult and labor-intensive assembly process at elevation. For
large flues and ducts, preassembled modules are preferred. For
reactors, the two options usually considered are stacking
preassembled rectangular modules, or erecting fully assembled,
flat wall panels. Components for large boilers and units with-
out navigable water access warrant shop assembly of truck-ship-
pable panels, which can then be assembled into the flues or re-
actors and insulated prior to erection. Despite the transporta-
tion cost which may be on the order of $500,000, barge ship-
ment of shop assembled and insulated modules is usually the
more economical since it minimizes field assembly to the great-

Figure 4 Barge shipment of shop fabricated and insulated
modules.
est extent and reduces the impact of potential field labor short-
ages. Figure 4 shows a barge arriving at a job site with fully
insulated flue and reactor modules.
This recent 270 MWe, coal-fired installation had 31 segments
of flues with some weighing up to 50 tons. These modules were
shop fabricated, insulated and lagged. An ongoing project for a
380 MWe unit has plans for 35 segments weighing up to 130
tons, all being shop modularized, insulated and barged to the site.
Figure 5 illustrates the extent of segmentation necessary to
efficiently and economically erect SCR flues for a 900 MWe
coal-fired unit. The total number of flue segments is 52.
The more preassembly done on the ground or in the
fabricator’s shop, the greater the potential for a lower cost
project; however, the required amount of planning is consider-
ably greater for delivering shop-assembled modules. Simple lift-
ing attachments exemplify this requirement. The lugs and sup-
ports needed to move large assemblies of flue or reactor sec-
tions within the fabricator’s shop and insulating area are not
necessarily those appropriate for loading and stacking barges, for
tying down during shipment, for offloading, or for maneuvering
the bulky modules up, into and through the support steel on site.
Careful attention to these and many other details is needed to as-
sure the desired economic benefit, efficiency and safety.
The integration of numerous design considerations must be
addressed early in the project by the project manager, designer
and erector to produce a quality and economical installation of
flues and reactor(s).
Prior to the issuance of key design outputs, the erector should
review and comment based on constructability. Many times a
preliminary review can catch simple items such as missing or
incorrect information. If not caught early, missing or incorrect in-
formation could lead to costly rework, or at a minimum, delays in
production during critical path activities while waiting for revised
engineering documents or pending engineering evaluation.
Once modules are identified and an erection sequence is estab-
lished, the project team can work with the plate fabricators on de-
livery. If the construction approach is to field assemble panels into
modules, this activity will provide the project team the opportu-
nity to review and approve the shop’s plan for panelization. The
benefits of this are twofold. First, it provides valuable information
and knowledge about the material to be received, including the
extent of work required on-site to pre-assemble modules. It is also
possible to suggest alternative shipping units that may save costly
field labor and improve on-site productivity. In most instances,
this activity adds little to no cost to fabrication.
In nearly every large SCR project, the steel and flues are
installed in a defined sequence to maximize the efficiency of
the erection and to complete the work in the minimum time.
This will involve building sufficient steel to set the outlet flues
or bypass flues. Once those initial flues are set, steel progresses
again to the point where additional flue sections can be set and the
reactor built. Ideally, horizontal runs of ductwork are bottom-sup-
ported, which means the support steel must first be installed be-
neath the duct. In addition, tie-in steel or cover-plating the existing
structure usually needs to be accomplished prior to loading the
new structure. This may require close coordination with the engi-
neers who design the structure to ensure the uncompleted structure
is adequate to support the initial duct sections installed.
The engineers should be made aware of the construction /
erection plan and provide minimum steel to be installed to sup-
port the erection sequence. Coverplating the existing steel can
be a time-consuming and costly effort. Many times the existing

Sequencing and Modularization

Early in the project, specific information about the weights of
ductwork sections and equipment has to be estimated. Many times
the module boundaries are easily identified, due to equipment
terminal points or expansion joint locations. Other times, sound
judgments must be made based on experience. The erector is
the prime contributor in determining splice locations that are
best from a variety of standpoints, including access, crane ca-
pacity and geometry.
The resulting erection sequence can then be used in establish-
ing schedule priorities for detail design, material procurement and
fabrication. To allow maximum flexibility for installation, it makes
sense to prioritize those efforts in accordance with erection plans.
Receiving material far in advance of the time required at the
job, or in a sequence that does not support planned erection,
only adds cost and burdens the job with additional material
handling or overhead. It may also force the constructor to
work on activities that deviate from the intended plan. Figure 5 Flue segmentation for a 900 MW e coal-fired unit.

Babcock & Wilcox 5

steel is coated with lead-based paint, which must be abated prior
to any welding or grinding operations. It may be desirable to
design alternative connections that bolt rather than weld in or-
der to minimize the extent of abatement. Also, it is likely that
there exist numerous interferences with plant utilities supported
from columns or beams being modified. This makes the effort
even more deliberate and requires close coordination with plant
operations.
It may be necessary (depending upon anticipated plant out-
ages) to complete a unit tie-in prior to the SCR being con-
structed. This effort will focus on getting a clear gas path con-
structed and will include dampers and blanking plates to allow
the balance of construction to take place subsequent to the tie-
in. The blanking plates allow safe entry to the flues during plant
operation. If this approach is taken, it will impact the erection
sequence and potentially add to the cost of construction.
Cranes, “Constructability,” and Access
Each SCR project poses a unique set of circumstances, ei-
ther due to the plant’s geographic location, available real estate
and lay down area, or interferences (both above and below grade).
Since most SCR projects are retrofits, access is limited with many
interferences and obstructions. A typical SCR project can require
the installation of 500 or more cubic yards of concrete, hundreds
of piles, thousands of tons of structural steel and plate work, and
literally miles of cable and raceway. A comprehensive construc-
tion plan with its intended rigging scheme is therefore critical.
One of the most critical decisions is crane selection. To se-
lect the appropriate crane(s), a determination must be made as
to the limiting component of the rigging scheme. If site condi-
tions limit the crane size, the largest module (or assembly) to
be fabricated or ground assembled will be limited by the crane’s
available hook (lifting) capacity. If adequate space is available
and crane size is not an issue, the optimal or largest module to
be erected must be determined.
Once the weight of the largest component is identified, crane
selection can begin. Project economics may drive the decision
away from the largest (and most expensive) crane. In many in-
stances, the best crane for the project is not the one with the
greatest capacity. Large cranes (over 250 ton capacity) can range
in cost from $30,000 to $130,000 per month, and transportation
costs to the job can exceed $100,000. Depending upon the SCR
arrangement, two of these large cranes may be required. For
large projects posing unique or complicated arrangements, crane
costs alone can exceed $250,000 per month.
Another factor is the impact of the crane’s bearing pressures
on existing soil. If the existing site soil conditions can not handle
the loads, considerable dollars and labor are often required. It
is also important to note that most cranes experience the great-
est load when merely raising a boom, not when lifting a load.
Overall, crane costs when projected over the duration of the
project, can be several million dollars.
Flues should be bottom-supported where possible, and ide-
ally the identified modules will be self-supporting (even if this
requires temporary shop-installed supports). This self-support-
ing feature allows modules to be released from the crane rather
than held in place until welded out or lashed off.
Weather is another factor. Winds in excess of 25 mph can
shut down crane operations, limiting the window of opportu-
nity for rigging components into place. Also, fit-up bolts be-
tween adjacent panels or modules should be considered. These
6 Babcock & Wilcox
can help improve productivity and limit adverse effects associ-
ated with weather and wind.
Due to the extensive work required inside the flues, large
access doors can prove beneficial for workers and equipment.
There are literally miles of welding to be accomplished inside
the reactor and ductwork. Module identification assists in stra-
tegic door placement, and in many instances, a door can be added
if it helps the construction effort.
A significant amount of scaffolding is generally required,
and a good construction plan will identify those modules that
require scaffolding to access welding locations. Once identi-
fied, scaffold brackets or fixtures can be installed on the ground
prior to lifting the modules into place. In addition, as the steel
is erected, any permanent stairs, ladders, platforms and hand-
rails for the elevations should be delivered and installed. This
can help the project proceed safely, without the need for tem-
porary platforms or scaffold stair towers.
Field Labor, Work Force Leveling and
Resource Requirements
Time of performance should be a significant concern for both
scheduling and cost. Many SCR projects have schedules that
overlap other SCR projects, sometimes within the same labor
region. These overlapping schedules can have significant im-
pact on all resources including labor and equipment. Many la-
bor union locals are stretched to support a variety of projects. Ad-
ditionally, labor rates have escalated during recent years. It may
become necessary to react to labor shortages by paying travel and
subsistence, working overtime, or importing workers from outside
the region, or perhaps outside the country. The same issues hold
true for qualified supervision. It can be a significant effort to put
the right people at the right place at the right time.
Each project starts with an estimated number of total
manhours. Only by knowing the estimated hours, as well as a
breakdown of the work by craft jurisdiction and the time of
performance, can a plan be developed. To adequately determine
the manpower for a project, and to address the fact that a sig-
nificant portion of work will occur during planned maintenance
outages, total manpower requirements must consider not only
the SCR project, but also the requirements to support the out-
ages planned at each unit. Therefore, recognizing the total mag-
nitude of the projects at site is a key first step.
The demands for construction labor have led to labor avail-
ability problems in several regions across the country. Figure 6
indicates how employment levels have increased over the course
of the last few years.
Figure 6 Boilermaker national employment levels, 1997-2002.
 This graph represents the utilization of available boilermaker
resources. For SCR projects, boilermaker work can be roughly
70-80% of the total direct manhours. In essence, the graph shows
that nationally, the boilermakers for the last few years have been
at or near full employment. This fact makes it difficult to re-
cruit members to travel for project work when there is work in
their home local.
Sometimes it may be necessary to lure prospective talent
into a region. This can include planning for and offering an ex-
tended workweek during periods of peak labor demand. Per-
haps it means that the standard workweek for a project in non-
outage periods is based upon 50 hours. This can help to ensure
labor availability and labor retention. During the outage peri-
ods it is likely that additional overtime would be required.
During peak labor demand periods, if labor availability con-
tinues to be a concern, subsistence packages might be required,
over and above the regular and overtime earnings. If all of this
fails to attract qualified labor, it may be necessary to bring in
workers from outside the country (i.e. Canada). All of these
initiatives have been used successfully on projects that have
experienced labor availability issues.
If executing an EPC project, other key resources impacted
by time of performance include qualified subcontractors for field
construction scope that is not self-performed. Babcock &
Wilcox, for example, performs the mechanical portion or metal
trades portion of its work, but usually subcontracts and man-
ages civil, electrical, and instrumentation and controls scope.
These subcontracts are often awarded to contractors located near
the job site to take advantage of lower overhead, but also to
strategically align with the local economy. Finding qualified
vendors in disparate regions can be challenging as well. Ide-
ally, there will be sufficient time to allow vendor qualification
while the design is being developed and finalized.
Equipment is another key resource that requires planning
relative to time of performance. On SCR projects, total equip-
ment and non-labor costs can represent 10 – 20% of the project.
It is critical to know that the right equipment for the job will be
available when required. This may entail the issuance of pur-
chase orders and incurring some costs well in advance of the
date the equipment is needed merely to ensure its availability.
Summary
The retrofitting of a power plant with an SCR system is a
cost-intensive effort. Key to controlling both cost and quality
is the effective execution of the project. The success of these
capital-intensive installations is a direct result of the key deci-
sions made before and during the project by the project man-
ager, designer and erector working as a team, and a result of the
integrated design and erection techniques applied throughout
the project to structural steel, flues, ducts and reactors. This
cooperative, multi-disciplined approach must be a continuous
process and must be aimed at evolving the design and the in-
stallation of the major components.z

Copyright © 2002 by The Babcock & Wilcox Company,

a McDermott company.
All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system, without the written
permission of the copyright holder. Permission requests should be addressed to: Market Communications, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, P.O. Box 351, Barberton,
Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351.

Disclaimer
Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with the understanding that The Babcock & Wilcox Company and the
authors are supplying general information and are not attempting to render or provide engineering or professional services. Neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company
nor any of its employees make any warranty, guarantee, or representation, whether expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of
any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work; and neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its employees shall be liable for any
losses or damages with respect to or resulting from the use of, or the inability to use, any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work.

Babcock & Wilcox 7