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

Project No.: 0172.07.029.040 DISTRIBUTION

Page _1_ of __2_

Project Name: Steam Electric Rulemaking

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

 Outgoing Call

Date: 02/17/2010 Time: 4:00 pm EST

Company Name: United Conveyor Corporation (UCC)

Contact Name: Kevin McDonough

Phone No.: 847-473-5900 ext.350

Name: Sarah Holman Eastern Research Group

GENERAL SUBJECT : Potential Changes to the Ash Handling Part of the Steam Electric ICR 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Sarah Holman contacted Kevin McDonough, on Wednesday, February 17, to discuss the potential changes that 

EPA was considering making to Part C (Ash Handling) of the questionnaire. Sarah talked with Mr. McDonough

regarding his thoughts about these potential changes. Below is a summary of the call.

Mr. McDonough is looking forward to the EPA visit to UCC in early March. He mentioned that he's planning 

to provide EPA with a list of power plant wet-to-dry ash conversion sites that was discussed in a previous

conference call held on December 10, 2009.

Mr. McDonough expressed interest in reviewing the 2nd FRN version of the questionnaire to provide feedback 

on Part C. He said he didn't get a chance to review the 1st FRN version like he wanted to. Mr. McDonough 

stated that his is in favor of the ash handling system-level approach for Part C. He thinks that is the way plants 

view their ash handling operations and it would be a good way for plants to provide information.

Mr. McDonough confirmed that it's rare for plants to combine dry fly ash and bottom ash for handling and 

storage. Other than for CFB boilers, he's not really aware of plants combining dry fly ash and bottom ash. He 

said that UCC discourages this practice because of the issues it can cause in a silo (i.e., fly ash readily fluidizes 

and bottom ash doesn't due to bigger particle size). Mr. McDonough stated that he is aware of some plants that 

attempted to store fly and bottom ash together; but ultimately the attempts failed. Standard-type crushing of 

bottom ash (in clinker grinders) doesn't reduce bottom ash particle size to that of fly ash. Regarding the CFB 

ash handling systems, Mr. McDonough confirmed that fly ash and bottom ash is collected dry (separately) and 

positive pressure pneumatic conveying systems are typically used to convey the fly ash and bottom ash to a 

common storage silo. He said Reliant Energy's Seward Station in PA is an example of that type of system.

Mr. McDonough stated that there are two main cases in which plants may not be able to retrofit Submerged 

Flight Chain (SFC) systems due to technical difficulties or cost. Regarding case #1, some bottom ash hoppers 

are located within concrete pits that are like swimming pools. Plants would have to do some major 

reconstruction to those concrete walls to install an SFC. Case #2 is when structural steel supports are located on 

either end of the boiler that basically block the pathway for an SFC. In these cases, UCC offers plants two 

options, a dewatering bin/recirculation system or the PAX (a vacuum system that pipes bottom ash to a silo).

For the PAX option, large horsepower vacuum exhausters are required due to the bottom ash particle size, and 

there can be abrasion issues.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________

In the course of the conversation, Mr. McDonough noted that he has recently taken samples of bottom ash from 

the end/discharge of SFC systems and the moisture ranges from 12 to 30%. Regarding Part C, Mr. McDonough

thought it made sense to treat mechanical drag systems as one bottom ash handling system component. He also 

didn't think there would be much value in finding out what specific type/brand of mechanical drag system plants 

have in place (e.g., SFC vs. SCC vs. SSC) because they are so similar in design, operation, and cost. The major 

cost variance comes with the load-bearing potential of these mechanical drag systems (i.e., to handle varying 

amounts of slag fall).

As we've heard before from the ash handling companies, Mr. McDonough said that purge streams are not 

typically necessary for dewatering bin/recirculation systems. He stated that dissolved solids that build up can 

affect pH and cause scaling, but that a bit of pH adjustment, usually lime, solves the problem.