### MEMORANDUM

TO: Ron Jordan, EPA

FROM: Elizabeth Sabol, ERG

DATE: 18 September 2009

SUBJECT: Notes from Pre-Visit Call with DTE En ergy and Monroe Plant Personnel on September 15, 2009

EPA held a teleconference with staff from D TE Energy and the Monroe power plant (Monroe) on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM EDT. Participants discussed the operations at Monroe in preparation for the scheduled EPA visit on Wednesday, September 23, 2009. The following people participated in the call:

DTE Energy
Jason Brown
Dan Estes Mary Hana Brad McIntyre Paul Tracey

Monroe Power Plant Clair Jennings
Chuck Larham

EPA
Ron Jordan
Jezebele Alicea

ERG
Sarah Holman
Elizabeth Sabol

This memorandum summarizes the te leconference discussion points.

Background on Steam Electric Detaile d Study and Introductory Remarks

EPA provided background on the study of the steam electric industry, high lighting that the study is concluding and EPA is moving forward on revi sing the steam electric effluent guidelines. EPA stated that the purpose of the site visit is to learn more about the plant’s operations, specifically the FGD wastewater treatment system and the dry fly ash handling system. EPA stated that they would like to get a good understanding of the changes that took place during the installation of the dry fly ash hand ling system, and of the dry fly ash handling process in general.Memorandum September 18, 2009 Page 2

Site Visit Logistics

 EPA stated that the site visits conducted during the st udy have usually consisted of the following:

o Check in

o Safety briefing

o Introduction to the plant

o Tour

o Debrief from the tour/questions

 EPA stated that EPA/ERG will come prepared with hard hats, steel-toed shoes, safety glasses, and hearin g protection for the tour.

 EPA stated that there will be four EPA/ER G staff on the site visit: Ron Jordan and Jezebele Alicea, EPA and Sarah Holman and Elizabeth Sabol, ERG. Ron Jordan stated that he planned to contact Stephanie Swart with MDEQ to inform her of the EPA site visit. Mary Hana stated th at she would forward Stephanie Swart’s
contact information to Ron Jordan.

 Monroe stated that picture IDs will be required.

 EPA stated that during the site visit they would like to take photos to aid in the preparation of notes from the visit. EPA stated that DTE Energy/Monroe will receive a copy of all photos taken and will be able to flag any photos as
confidential.

 Monroe stated that MapQuest would provide directions to the plant and that there was only one place to access the facility. Monroe instructed EPA to park and then Monroe will meet EPA/ERG in the lobby.

 EPA, DTE Energy, and Monroe agreed to begin the site visit at 8:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, September 23, 2009. DTE Energy stated that lunch will be provided
on site.

 EPA asked if Headwaters staff would be on-si te and available during the site visit. DTE Energy stated that they were still communicating with Headwaters about
that.

Brief Overview of the Plant and Fly Ash Handling System

 EPA requested that DTE Energy/Monroe pr ovide a schematic or flow diagram of the fly ash handling process prior to the si te visit. DTE Energy stated that one will be provided.

 DTE Energy stated the dry fly ash handling system in place at the plant was built and is owned and operated by Headwaters Resources.

 DTE Energy stated that the Unit 1 dry fly ash handling system is fully operational. The Unit 2 dry fly ash hand ling system is not yet operational, but should be by the end of September 2009. The Unit 3 and 4 dry fly ash handling systems will not be installed/opera tional until 2013 at the earliest.

 DTE Energy stated that the installation of the dry fly ash handling system at the Monroe plant is not considered a convers ion. The system would not be able to handle 100 percent of the fly ash dry. The generating units will retail the capability of handling the fly ash wet.

 The current system pulls the fly ash by vac uum dry to a tee valve in the pipe. AtMemorandum September 18, 2009 Page 3

this point in the pipe, the ash can be se nt to either the wet or dry ash handling systems. If kept dry, the ash is pulle d by a mechanical exhauster through a filter separator to a surge silo.

 From the silo, positive pressure pushes the dry ash to the loading silo (31,000 ton capacity) 3,100 ft away.

 The dry fly ash is loaded into trucks/pne umatic trailers and sold to the cement industry. Monroe stated that they soon should have rail capability.

 Monroe stated that this “bone dry” fly ash handling process is different from a dry fly ash handling process for on-site ash di sposal, in which the ash would need to be moisture-conditioned with up to 20 per cent moisture added. Monroe stated that a moisture-conditioned process requires different equipment and additional air pollution controls.

 Monroe explained that they are able to se ll their dry fly ash in the summer, but do not plan to sell their fly ash in the winter because they would need to transport it to a southern state, which would be too costly. Additionally, storing the dry fly ash for the winter months would require more storage space than available; therefore, Monroe inte nds to revert to wet fly ash sl uicing when they are not able to sell the fly ash. [Note to EPA: At this point, Monroe discussed the trucking that would be required to haul away ash if a different type of ash handling system were in place.
However we did not catch all of the deta ils and would like to discuss this during the site visit.]

 Monroe stated that the fi rst generating unit came on line in 1971 and the last of four generating units came on line in 1974. Since that time, all ash generated from these units has been sent to ash ponds.

 Monroe stated that the plant uses gene ral plant service water (river water) for fugitive dust control of the fly ash. If necessary, the plant uses a dust-binding agent, but is careful that the agen t does not contaminat e the wastewater.

 Monroe stated that dry fly ash handling sy stem has the capability to produce up to 450 tons of ash. The dry fly ash surge silo, which has a 150 ton capacity, currently needs to be emptie d continuously 16 hours/day.

 Monroe stated that they currently have three differe nt ash handling systems for handling fly, bottom, and economizer/air heater ash. Economizer/air heater ash can not be handled together with either fl y or bottom ash due to particle size (too large for the cement industry) and cont amination (Monroe’s bottom ash meets state standards as reusable), respectively.

 Monroe stated that the economizer as h is currently pulled from the hopper by vacuum, gravity drained to a slurry ta nk, and suction pumped (provided by water from gravity draining) to the basin.

 EPA inquired if Monroe has (or has plans to install) mercury control systems. Monroe stated that they have a co-po llutant removal strategy in which the FGD and SCR system remove mercury as a co-b enefit. Monroe has no plans to install enhanced/advanced mercury control sytems due to the vacatur of EPA rules.