MEMORANDUM 

TO: Ron Jordan, EPA 

FROM: Elizabeth Sabol, ERG 

DATE: 18 September 2009 

SUBJECT: Notes from Pre-Visit Call with DTE Energy and Monroe Plant Personnel on 

September 15, 2009 

EPA held a teleconference with staff from DTE 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 teleconference discussion points. 

Background on Steam Electric Detailed Study and Introductory Remarks 

EPA provided background on the study of the steam electric industry, highlighting that the study 

is concluding and EPA is moving forward on revising 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 handling 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 study 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 hearing protection for the tour. 

 EPA stated that there will be four EPA/ERG 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 that 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-site 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 provide a schematic or flow diagram of 

the fly ash handling process prior to the site 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 handling 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/operational 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 conversion. 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 vacuum dry to a tee valve in the pipe. At 
Memorandum 

September 18, 2009 

Page 3 

this point in the pipe, the ash can be sent to either the wet or dry ash handling 

systems. If kept dry, the ash is pulled 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/pneumatic 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 disposal, in which the ash would need to 

be moisture-conditioned with up to 20 percent moisture added. Monroe stated that 

a moisture-conditioned process requires different equipment and additional air 

pollution controls. 

 Monroe explained that they are able to sell 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 intends to revert to wet fly ash sluicing 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 details and would like to discuss this during 

the site visit.] 

 Monroe stated that the first 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 general 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 agent does not contaminate the wastewater. 

 Monroe stated that dry fly ash handling system 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 emptied continuously 16 hours/day. 

 Monroe stated that they currently have three different ash handling systems for 

handling fly, bottom, and economizer/air heater ash. Economizer/air heater ash 

can not be handled together with either fly or bottom ash due to particle size (too 

large for the cement industry) and contamination (Monroe’s bottom ash meets 

state standards as reusable), respectively. 

 Monroe stated that the economizer ash is currently pulled from the hopper by 

vacuum, gravity drained to a slurry tank, 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-pollutant removal strategy in which the FGD 

and SCR system remove mercury as a co-benefit. Monroe has no plans to install 

enhanced/advanced mercury control sytems due to the vacatur of EPA rules.