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 tren ds/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 as h handling, both plants have operational dry fly ash handling systems;

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

 AEP’s Mitchell plant is in the engineering and c onstruction phase of instal ling 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 ha ndling system to a PAX system (100 percent dry vacuum), which is cu rrently 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 conve rting their bottom ash handling system to a remote submerged flight conve yor (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 syst em, to be installed at SCE&G’s Wateree plant will be installed for 2 generating units. Currently, TVA is pos tponing Kingston’s plans for a remote SFC conversion. Although these systems will be first in th e 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 plan ning 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 num ber of plants are in th e pipeline. Generally, UCC stated that many of the remaining units operating wet slui cing systems are retiring because they are older, smaller units that are likely less efficient. Additionally, UCC stated that pl ants 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 system s, which offer fuel flexibility and a salable product (considering the economy). UCC stated that bottom ash de watering 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 wastew ater. 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 (compare d to wet/treating wastewater) because there is no risk of discharging wastewater above the effluent guidelines. EPA confirme d that there would be no upset/bypass regulation in NPDES permits because a completely dry handling option exists.

UCC explained that Duke Energy’s plan ts (i.e., Marshall, A llen, Wabash, and Gibson) are going dry to avoid violations, or risks of violations, with NPDES perm its. Additionally, Duke Energy is exploring ash handling technologies in anticipation of cha nging regulations. Additionally, UCC re ports 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 Ener gy 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 con centrations in the recycle stream. UCC described that they usually install a pH c ontrol 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 beNeed to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ an issue with a closed looped system becau se of corrosion with carbon steel surfaces.

However, EPA, ERG, and UCC discussed that pH ad justment does not addre ss 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 partic les do not have the leachability characteristics like fly ash and bottom ash is dewatered to 20 percen t moisture content prior to the recycle.