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: 0 2 / 17 /2010 Time: 4: 0 0 pm EST

Company Name: United Conveyor Corpora tion (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 H olman 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 ch anges

. 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 v ersion 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. McDono ugh

stated that his is in favor of the a sh 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 rar e 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 i n 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 crus hing 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 ma y not be able to retrofit S ubmerged

F light C hain (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

reconstruct ion 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/recirc ulation sy stem or the PAX ( a vacuum system that pipes bottom ash to a silo).

For th e 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. McDonoug h noted that h e has recently taken s amples 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 varian ce 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 a re not

typically necessary for dewater ing 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.