Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ 

 Project No.: 0172.09.029.043 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __3_

Project Name: Steam Electric Rulemaking 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call 

Date: 05/24/2012 Time: 11:00 AM 

Company Name: United Conveyor Corporation (UCC) 

Contact Name: UCC (See below) 

Phone No.: Conference Call 

Name: EPA and ERG (See below) 

GENERAL SUBJECT : Ash Handling Conversions in the Industry 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

On May 24, 2012 ERG participated in a call with EPA and United Conveyor Corporation). A list of participants 

is provided below: 

EPA

Ron Jordan 

Jezebele Alicea-Virella 

UCC

Kevin McDonough 

Mike Kipnis 

ERG

TJ Finseth 

Elizabeth Sabol 

Notes: 

EPA provided a brief introduction for the call explaining the current status of the rulemaking and asked UCC 

for information, specifically the trends/product activity for ash handling in the steam electric power industry. 

UCC noted the wet to dry conversions in the recent past or in process: 

 TVA’s Kingston and Bull Run plants converted to dry fly ash handling, both plants have operational dry 

fly ash handling systems; 

 Duke Energy’s Gibson plant is in the process of converting their wet sluicing system to a dry fly ash 

handling system; 

 AEP’s Mitchell plant is in the engineering and construction phase of installing a vacuum pressure 

transfer system to collect fly ash; 

 Midwest’s Homer City is currently installing a traditional (tank based) closed loop recirculation system 

which is currently scheduled to be operational in 2012; 

 Progress Energy’s Mayo plant is planning to convert their current bottom ash handling system to a PAX 

system (100 percent dry vacuum), which is currently scheduled to be commissioned in 2013; 
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ 

 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s (SCE&G) Wateree plant is converting their bottom ash 

handling system to a remote submerged flight conveyor (SFC) system, which is currently scheduled to 

be operational in July 2012; 

 TVA’s Kingston and Bull Run plants are currently planning to convert their bottom ash handling 

systems to remote SFC systems. 

UCC explained that the remote SFC to be installed at the TVA Bull Run plant will be the first installed in the 

country (on the one and unit at the plant). The second system, to be installed at SCE&G’s Wateree plant will be 

installed for 2 generating units. Currently, TVA is postponing Kingston’s plans for a remote SFC conversion. 

Although these systems will be first in the country, they will not be the first operational in the world. Currently, 

there are one/two similar systems operating in China and one operating in South America. 

UCC explained that Progress Energy’s Mayo plant is planning to install their PAX system. EPA asked if they 

will mix their dry bottom ash collected with the PAX system, with the dry fly ash. UCC stated that it is hard to 

combine fly and bottom ash when the fly ash is being conditioned and unloaded; therefore, it depends on how 

the plant plans to operate those systems. 

UCC stated that budget proposals for a number of plants are in the pipeline. Generally, UCC stated that many of 

the remaining units operating wet sluicing systems are retiring because they are older, smaller units that are 

likely less efficient. Additionally, UCC stated that plants are eliminating hydroveyor systems (wet vacuum 

pneumatic systems) and replacing them with mechanical exhausters. Additionally, UCC stated that already 2/3 

of the industry is operating dry fly ash handling systems, which offer fuel flexibility and a salable product 

(considering the economy). UCC stated that bottom ash dewatering is a good handling system for power plants; 

however, fly ash dewatering is rare. 

EPA, ERG, and UCC discussed the possibility of dewatering fly ash and then treating and ultimately 

discharging the fly ash transport wastewater. EPA explained that there is no data available to evaluate this type 

of system. UCC stated they did an analysis and determined that there is no significant economic gain from 

converting to an all dry fly ash handling system (compared to wet/treating wastewater) because there is no risk 

of discharging wastewater above the effluent guidelines. EPA confirmed that there would be no upset/bypass 

regulation in NPDES permits because a completely dry handling option exists. 

UCC explained that Duke Energy’s plants (i.e., Marshall, Allen, Wabash, and Gibson) are going dry to avoid 

violations, or risks of violations, with NPDES permits. Additionally, Duke Energy is exploring ash handling 

technologies in anticipation of changing regulations. Additionally, UCC reports that Gibson engaged UCC for 

quotes for a bottom ash handling conversion. 

AEP is likely installing dry system at the Mitchell plant to avoid situations like the TVA Kingston spill because 

of its geographic location. 

UCC also reported that Progress Energy wants to convert ash handling systems to dry to get ahead of the 

industry. UCC stated that Progress is likely going with a PAX bottom ash handling system for the plants that 

still operate wet sluicing systems. UCC stated that this system because operational at Crystal River 15 years 

ago. 

UCC stated that remote SFC systems are being well received by the industry. EPA asked about this system as a 

closed loop system and any concerns for chemical concentrations in the recycle stream. UCC described that 

they usually install a pH control system when the closed loop system is first brought online; however, they are 

only aware of one plant still operating this system. Additionally, UCC stated that chlorine concentrations can be 
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ 

an issue with a closed looped system because of corrosion with carbon steel surfaces. 

However, EPA, ERG, and UCC discussed that pH adjustment does not address the buildup of metals 

concentrations in the recycled waste stream that may be discharged in the case of system upsets. UCC stated 

that this is not the case because coarse bottom ash particles do not have the leachability characteristics like fly 

ash and bottom ash is dewatered to 20 percent moisture content prior to the recycle.