Draft Notes from Site Visit at Duke Energy's Allen Steam Station on October 22, 2009

EPA conducted a site visit at Duke Energy ’s Allen Steam Station (Allen) located in Belmont, NC

on Thursday, October 22, 2009 to learn about the operations at the plant , s pecifically the FGD system and the FGD wastewater treatment system

. Table 1, located at the end of this
memorandum , identifies the site visit participants. The presentation that the Allen personnel gave during the site visit is provided as Attachment 1 to this memorandum. An overall plant water balance diagram and process flow diagrams of the FGD wastewater treatment system are
included within Attachment 1.

This memorandum describes the information collected during the site visit and the pre

- site visit ph one call, which was held on October 13, 2009.

Plant Overview

**•** Allen operates five steam electric units and each has a coal

- fired boiler. Units 1 and 2, which both came on line in 1957 , each have a capacity of 165 megawatts (MW). Units 3, 4, and 5 came on line in 1959, 1060 and 1961, respectively, and each has a capacity of 275 MW. All five generating units burn bituminous coal. The sulfur content of the coal is 1 to 1.2 pounds SO 2 /MBTU and the chlorine content of the coal is 50 to 1,500 ppm.

**•** The electric generating units at Allen are operated on a cycling basis and are not baseload units. The table below contains some general information for the five generating units.

Unit Installation

Date Gross Capacity

(MW) Particulate
Control NOx Control SO 2

1 Control

1957 165 Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) (cold

- side) Selective non

catalytic reduction (SNCR) Wet FGD installed
in Feb 2009 (common FGD for Units 1, 2, and 5)

2 1957 165 ESP (cold

- side) SNCR Wet FGD installed
in Feb 2009 (common FGD for Units 1, 2, a nd 5)

3 1959 275 ESP (cold

- side) SNCR Wet FGD installed in May 2009 (common FGD for Units 3 and 4)

4 1960 275 ESP (cold

- side) SNCR Wet FGD installed in May 2009 (common FGD for Units 3 and 4)

5 1961 275 ESP (cold

- side) SNCR Wet FGD installed
in Feb 2 009 (common FGD for Units 1, 2, and 5)Page 2

**•** Allen recently retrofitted all five units with two wet FGD scrubber system s to control the sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) releases from the plant . Units 1, 2 and 5 exhaust to FGD Absorber 1, and Units 3 and 4 exhaust to FGD A bsorber 3. The FGD
system s w ere installed in February 200 9 (Absorber 1) and May 2009 (Absorber 3). The wet FGD scrubbers are designed to achieve greater than 95 percent removal of SO 2

. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: What SO 2 percent removal do the
FGD scrubbers ac tually achieve?] Allen has also installed an FGD wastewater treatment system to control the discharges of the wastewater generated during the operation of the FGD scrubbers

.

**•** Allen operates ESPs to control fly ash and particulate emissions from the plant

. Allen also operates SNCR systems to control nitrogen oxide (NO

x ) emissions from the plant . The SNCRs operate year

- round. Additionally, the boilers are operated with low

- NO
x burners and a separated overfire air system.

**•** The ESPs at Allen are particulate control devices that remove the fly ash and other particulates from the flue gas . Allen utilizes ESPs to remove the fly ash
from all five units

. The ESPs are designed to remove greater than 99.9 percent of the fly ash from the flue gas. The fly ash and oth er particulates are collected in hoppers and usually pneumatically transferred to fly ash silos

. However, Allen also has the capability to handle the fly ash wet, by sluicing the fly ash in the hoppers and transferring the fly ash transport water to the as h basin.

**•** All five generating u nits have the following configuration:

**•** Boiler (SNCR system contained in boiler) ;

**•** Air preheater ;

**•** ESP; and

**•** Wet FGD scrubber system

.

**•** Allen operates a once

- through cooling system. The cooling system has a flow rate of approxima tely 780 MGD. The source of the cooling water is the South Fork
River.

**•** The Allen plant is located on 1,000 acres adjacent to the Catawba River.

**•** [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: How many employees work at the plant?]

Ash Handling

**•** Allen stated that they previously sent all bottom and fly ash to an impoundment/basin; however, Allen converted to dry fly ash handling systems in April of 2009 to extend the life of the ash basin. Allen is still sending all the bottom ash and pyrites to the ash basin.

**•** Allen stated that another reason the plant decided to convert to dry fly ash handling was because of the selenium limit on the effluent from the ash basin (Outfall 002).Page 3

**•** The dry fly ash handling system retrofit was completed in June 2009. The total capital cost of the dry fly ash handling system was $39 million.

**•** Installation of the dry fly ash handling retrofit consisted of installing the following pieces of equipment: dry handling valves, vacuum filter separators, Nuva feeders, compressors, high pressure piping, and ash silos. The tie

- ins for the equipment were installed during regularly scheduled unit outages. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: Approximately how long (days, weeks?) did it take to complete the tie

in?] The following is a description of the dry fly ash handling system
components:

**•** Between the hoppers (which collect ESP and economizer fly ash) and the existing wet ash handling hydroveyor equipment, the plant installed a dry handling valve. The dry handling valve allows Allen to switch between operating the dry and wet f ly ash handling systems.

**•** The vacuum filter system consists of vacuum pumps and filter separators. The vacuum pumps use 350 psi air pressure to create a vacuum, pulling dry ash collected in the hoppers to the filter separators. Allen has eight filter separ ators (two for Units 1 and 2 combined and two for each of Units 3, 4, and 5). The filter separator allows the air to separate from the dry fly ash. The air is vented from the top of the filter separator after passing through filter bags, which are like m ini baghouses. The filter bags are 84 inches long and there are 84 bags per filter separator. The filters remove any fly ash and other particulates from the vented air and the filters are pulsed with air occasionally (based on the pressure drop across th e filters) to remove the fly ash that accumulates on the bags.

**•** The ash then falls by gravity from the filter separator into the Nuva feeders. There are two Nuva feeders for each filter separator for a total of 16 Nuva feeders for the plant. Because the dry fly ash is blown to the silos under pressure, the Nuva feeders are required to transition between the vacuum system (i.e., the filter separators) and the pressure system. Therefore, Allen’s dry ash handling system is considered a combination vacuum/pr essure system.

**•** The Nuva feeders allow the ash handling system to transition from the vacuum system to the pressure system. While the first of the set of two Nuva feeders is receiving ash from the filter separator, the second is transferring ash out the bo ttom so the compressor can blow the ash to the storage silo. Once the first Nuva feeder is full and the second is empty, the plant switches the valves so the first Nuva feeder can begin transferring ash and the second can begin receiving ash.

**•** The fly ash is blown a distance of 1,800 feet to one of two ash storage silos. Allen stated that the pressurized pipe is significantly more expensive than the pipe used to transfer the sluiced bottom ash to the ash basin. Additionally, the pressurized pipe is more pr one to leaks than the wet ash pipe. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: What is the relative difference in cost between the piping?]

**•** The silos have a storage capacity of approximately three days of fly ash when operating at full load (between the two silos).Page 4

**•** The silos h ave a dry air system that blows air into the bottom of the silo to fluidize the fly ash. The silos also have filters at the top of the silos to collect any fly ash from the air that is vented.

**•** Ash from the silos is trucked away for beneficial reuse. Allen stated that the ash is collected by trucks at a frequency of 110 times per day. Each truck collects approximately 1,700 tons of ash.

**•** Allen has the capability of loading the trucks completely dry (sealed trucks) or conditioning the ash with water for loadi ng (open trucks).

**•** When fly ash is loaded dry, the ash is transferred from the silo s to the trucks pneumatically with a double annular spout. A vacuum is pulled through the outer annulus of the spout, creating a tight seal with the truck.
Ash is delivered through the inner annulus of the spout into the truck. The vacuum captures any fugitive dust and pulls it through the loading silo to the baghouse. It takes about 1 to 2 minutes for the ash to settle in the trucks before the spout is pulled away.

**•** When th e fly ash is loaded in a wet form, the fly ash is fed to a pug mill where it is mixed with service water to 17 percent moisture content, for optimal compaction. The fly ash is then dumped into the open trucks through a spout.

**•** The area surrounding the si los has sloped concrete and drains to collect rainfall or other water that may have become contaminated with fly ash. This water is transferred to the stormwater basin and then pumped to the
ash basin.

**•** Allen stated that the dry fly ash is currently sold f or a beneficial reuse application. The plant is waiting on a permit to be approved which will allow Allen to landfill the dry fly ash. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: For what beneficial reuse application is the fly ash being used?]

**•** Allen stated that they retained the capability of sluicing the fly ash with the existing wet system. When the fly ash is handled wet, the ash sluice is transferred to the ash basin at a flow rate of 1,200 gpm. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: When does the plant use the wet fly ash handling system?]

**•** Allen handles all bottom ash and pyrites wet. The bottom ash sluice flow rate is 13,700 gpm.

**•** Both fly and bottom ash are conveyed (pneumatically pumped or sluiced) at a frequency of two times per shift (2 shifts/day  4 times/day) for a duration

approx imately one hour.

Ash Basins and Landfill

**•** Allen has a retired ash basin, an active ash basin, and an ash pond.

**•** The retired basin has a total area of 180 acres and stopped receiving wastes in 1974. At the time of the visit, Allen was constructing a lan dfill over the retired ash basin. Allen stated that the plant has been permitted to store the dry fly ash and other coal combustion byproducts in the landfill.Page 5

**•** The landfill has a total area of 68 acres. It will be constructed with a double

- liner,
a leac hate collection system and a leak detection system. The double

- liner will cover ash stored in the inactive ash basin’s cells and is comprised of the following layers (from bottom to top): an 18 inch clay liner, a geosynthetic liner, a rubber liner (the sec ondary liner), a drainage net, a drainage layer consisting of two feet of soil (clay), a second drainage net, and a rubber liner (the primary liner). The drainage nets and drainage layer comprise the leak detection system, which detects leaks from the prim ary liner.

**•** Allen stated that the permeability of the clay liner is 10 - 5 cm/sec. The addition of the geosynthetic liner was necessary to obtain a permeability of 10 - 7 cm/sec.

**•** Allen indicated that the collected leachate will be transferred to the active ash
basin.

**•** Allen expects that the total cost for the landfill will be approximately $16.5

million. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: Please confirm the cost and provide a breakout.]

**•** The lifetime of the landfill is expected to be 2.5 million cubic yards, which is

e xpected to last for five years. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: Please confirm the expected landfill capacity.] The landfill is currently 18 feet above the water level and the plants estimates that it will be 180 feet above water level at the end of its
lifetime.

**•** The active ash basin began receiving bottom ash and fly ash (when handled wet) in 1974 when the inactive ash basin stopped receiving wastes.

**•** The fly ash (when handled wet) and bottom ash enter the active ash basin, where
the solids settle and the water fl ows through a series of three cells. The plant can direct the ash to any of the three cells. The effluent from the third cell overflows to a channel that flows towards the back of the ash basin (i.e., away from the Catawba River). Along this channel, th e plant has the capability of adding ferric sulfate to aid in settling. The channel then flows into the main ash pond. The ash pond discharges to the Catawba River. Allen has the capability to add sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide at the effluent of the pond to adjust the pH between 6
and 9.

**•** The neither the active ash basin nor the ash pond have a liner.

**•** Allen stated that the FGD wastewater treatment effluent, described later, is transferred to the ash pond. Allen has the system configured such that t he FGD wastewater treatment effluent enters into the ash basin channel and does not go through the ash basin cells. Allen stated that they have the capability to transfer the FGD wastewater through the cells if needed.Page 6

**•** Allen stated that the plant will have the ability to extend the lifetime of the active pond by dredging the solids in the active pond and transferring them to the
landfill.

**•** Allen indicated that the State requires them to perform leachate monitoring twice a year. Typical chemicals that t hey test for are boron, magnesium and iron.

**•** [ QUESTIONS FOR ALLEN: How often do you inspect the active basin for structural integrity? When was the last inspection and what did the inspection
consist of? ]

**•** [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: Do you perform groundwater m onitoring around the landfill and/or ash basins? If so, how often do you perform groundwater monitoring and what parameters are monitored for? Where are the monitoring wells located? Please provide the groundwater monitoring data for the five most

recent samples. ]

FGD System s

**•** Allen operates two forced oxidation wet FGD scrubber system s that treat the flue gas from all five electric generating units. The FGD systems are located
downstream of the ESP s and the flue gas from Units 1, 2, and 5 are combined and transferred to Absorber 1, while the flue from Units 3 and 4 are combined and transferred to Absorber 2. The FGD systems control the emission of sulfur
dioxide from the unit s. The plant uses limestone slurry as the sorbent for sulfur dioxide absorptio n

.

**•** The FGD systems are designed to achieve a 95 percent removal of sulfur dioxide from the flue gas, based on a design coal of 2.8 lbs SO 2 /MMBTU. Additionally, when Allen built the FGD systems, they installed the equipment needed to be able
to add dibas ic acid (DBA) to the system. At this point, the plant has not used or tested DBA in the system. Allen stated that they may consider using formic acid
sometime in the future.

**•** The limestone is delivered to the plant via rail, stored in an outdoor pile, an d then transferred to day bins. Allen has ball mills onsite to pulverize the limestone . The limestone is fed to the ball mills, along with service water, and the ball mills pulverize the limestone. From the ball mills, the slurry is transferred to hydroc lones to collect limestone particles that are too large for use in the FGD system. The underflow from the hydroclones is transferred to the reject tank and then sent back to the ball mill for additional processing. The overflow from the hydroclones, which is approximately 50 percent solids, is transferred to the reagent tank for storage and then used as fresh limestone slurry in the absorber.

**•** The fresh limestone slurry is fed to the reaction tank of the FGD system and the recycle pumps pump the slurry to the various levels of the FGD scrubber . Typical
solids concentrations in the absorber are 14

- 16%. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: Is
make

- up water added to the reagent tank or the reaction tank to achieve the 14

- 16% solids?] Both absorbers have four spray levels ; however, the plant typicallyPage 7

only operates three levels at one time. The slurry is pressurized and sprayed downward into the scrubber vessel through spray nozzles . T he flue gas flows

counter

- current to the falling slurry . As the spray droplets of the sl urry contact the flue gas , the limestone reacts with the sulfur dioxide and oxygen , produc ing calcium sulfate (gypsum).

**•** Allen intermittently purges volume of the gypsum slurry from the reaction tank to
control the solids and/or chlorides concentration in the scrubbers. The chlorides
concentration in the scrubbers is maintained between 3 ,000 and 10,000 ppm . The maximum design chlorides concentration is 1 2,000 ppm in the system

. The typical percent of solids within the absorber is 14 % to 16 %.

**•** The purge stream from the reaction tank is sent to the gypsum dewatering s ystem

. Allen stated that because of the low

- sulfur coal that they are currently using, they typically have to purge from the FGD system to control the chlorides
concentration instead of contr olling the solids content in the scrubber.

**•** The purge stream is pumped to the primary hydrocyclones where the gypsum is separated from the water by centrifugal force. The gypsum is forced outward to the walls of the hydrocyclones and falls downward, whil e the water exits the top of the hydrocyclones. The gypsum from the primary hydrocyclones is transferred to the filter feed tank, which is then transferred to the vacuum filter belts. Allen washes the gypsum with service water as it is applied to the vacu um belt filter to reduce the chlorides in the gypsum. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: Where does the plant transfer the gypsum wash water from the vacuum belt filter?]

**•** Allen stated that the gypsum is shipped off site by a truck to a wallboard
manufacturer in Mount Holly, NC. The following are the specifications that the gypsum must meet to be sold to the wallboard manufacturer:

**•** Less than 10 percent moisture; and

**•** Less than 120 ppm chlorides.

**•** Allen stated that the moisture content in the gypsum is typically 4 perc ent and the chlorides concentration is typically less than 20 ppm

**•** The overflow from the primary hydrocyclones is transferred to a holding tank, and then pumped to the secondary hydrocyclones. The underflow from the secondary hydrocyclones is returned to t he scrubber. The overflow from the secondary hydrocyclones is sent to the FGD wastewater treatment system . This FGD purge stream contains 0.5 to 0.8 percent of solids.

FGD Wastewater Treatment System

**•** Prior to the site visit, Allen distributed a descripti on of the FGD wastewater treatment system, provided as Attachment 2 to this memorandum.

**•** The FGD wastewater treatment system is designed to receive transfers of FGD

wastewater from the FGD system , which con sists of secondary hydrocyclonePage 8

overflow , at a flo w rate of 400 gpm . The FGD wastewater treatment system consists of chemical precipitation and biological treatment technologies.

**•** The secondary hydrocyclone overflow from the scrubbers is transferred to the equalization tank at the beginning of the wastew ater treatment system. Allen also has a maintenance tank that is used as either a spare equalization tank or a spare sludge holding tank. The equalization tank also receives water from the filtrate sump (which includes filter press filtrate), gravity filt er backwash reject, backflush waste from the biological treatment system, and off

- specification biological treatment effluent. The wastewater entering the equalization tank has a pH of 6.7

- 6.9 and a temperature of 105

- 115o F. Allen stated that a significan t amount of CO 2 is released during the agitation of the wastewater in the equalization tank.

**•** From the equalization tank, the wastewater enters three reaction tanks in series. In the first reaction tank, lime is added to increase the pH to between 8.6 and 9.2.
The effluent from this tank enters the second reaction tank designed for organosulfide addition; however, th e plant does not add organosulfide to the
reaction tank because the plant determined that organosulfide addition was not

necessary to meet its effluent limits

.

**•** After the organosulfide tank, the FGD wastewater is transferred to the third reaction tank where ferric chloride is added. Allen stated that they are tuning the ferric chloride dosage for the plant and questioning whether ferric chloride is needed in the system to achieve the effluent limits at the plant. According to plant personnel, the plant has dropped the dosage by 40 percent and has not seen any change in the performance of the system. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: What parameters are anal yzed to assess system performance ? ]

**•** The overflow from the ferric chloride tank flows through a flow splitter which distributes the flow evenly to two clarifiers. Allen operates the two clarifiers in parallel, each capable of handling 100 % of the waste st ream flow. A polymer is added to the wastewater just prior to the clarifiers.

**•** The sludge collected in the clarifier is transferred to a sludge holding tank and dewatered with a filter press. The filter press uses hydraulic power from
compressors to remov e water. The solids are transferred to an off

- site landfill and the filtrate is recycled to the equalization tank.

**•** The clarifier overflow is neutralized by hydrochloric acid addition (if necessary) and flows through three continuous backwash gravity filt ers operated in parallel. Each filter is capable of handling 75 % of the wastewater flow. The hydrochloric acid helps prevent scale formation in the filters. The effluent of the gravity filters is approximately 1 to 2 ppm TSS.

**•** The effluent from the gravi ty filters is transferred to the biological treatment system feed tank.Page 9

**•** Prior to entering the biological portion of the wastewater treatment system, hea t exchangers cool the wastewater to 95o F, the optimal temperature for the biological treatment system . Allen stated that the heat exchangers were constructed with a titanium alloy which can withstand the high levels of chlorides and suspended solids in the FGD wastewater entering the biological treatment
system . The heat exchanger requires 300 to 350 gpm of cooling water. [QUESTION FOR ALLEN: Is any make

- up water added to dilute or cool the influent wastewater to the biological system?]

**•** Allen adds molasses

- based nutrients to the wastewater as it flows from the heat exchanger to the biological treatmen t system. The nutrients provide a source of
carbon to feed the bacteria.

**•** Allen stated that the biological treatment system is nearly identical to the biological treatment system at Belews Creek and consists of two stages. The residence time in each stage is approximately 4 hours.

**•** Both bioreactor stages contain eight biological cells operated in parallel. Each of the bioreactor cells contains beds of activated carbon media 20 feet deep. The
wastewater is initially sent into the first

- stage cells , where th e flow into the first cell is evenly distributed to 16 distribution pipes to create an uniform distribution of flow into the top of the cell. The water level in the cell was designed to be approximately six inches above the activated carbon bed ; however, a t the time of the site visit, the water level was below the top of the carbon bed

. Within the activated carbon bed, microbes create a fixed film on the surface of the carbon. Water flows from the top of each cell down through the carbon beds. Water from the first cell is then pumped from the bottom of the first cell to the top of the second cell. The wastewater continues in this fashion through all eight cells that
make

- up the 1 st stage of the bioreactor.

**•** The effluent from all first

- stage of the biore actor is transferred to the first

- stage effluent storage area , before being sent to the second

- stage bioreactor cells, which are also operated in parallel. N utrients are added to the wastewater as feed for the
microbes as the wastewater is transferred. As in the first stage, t he wastewater is
divided evenly among the eight second

- stage cells and each cell has 16 distributor pipes to evenly distribute the flow into the cell

.

**•** Occasionally the bioreactor cells must be backflushed to remove accumulated
solids. The plant pumps the effluent from the first

- stage bioreactor cells backwards through each cell and it overflows into a spillover area. The plant then returns the backwash overflow to the equalization tank at the start of the FGD
wastewater treatment syst em

.

**•** Because the first

- stage bioreactor cells denitrify the waste stream, they produce nitrogen and carbon dioxide gas. To remove the gas from the cells, the plant occasionally performs a degassing operation where water is sent backwards through the cells, like a backflush, but the flush is only long enough for the gas to “burp” out of the system. The second

- stage bioreactor cells are primarily anoxic and do not produce as much gas as the first

- stage cells; therefore, Allen performsPage 10

the degassing operation on the second

- stage cells less frequently than the first

stage cells.

**•** Allen stated that the TSS concentration within the first and second stage bioreactor cells is approximately 40 ppm. The solids in the cells are mostly biological materials.

**•** Allen sta ted that the system achieves significant reductions in dissolved metals
concentrations in the first

- stage reactors; therefore, the second stage is primarily a polishing step but it also provides a safety net for high metal loads. Allen stated that arsenic, zinc, nickel and selenium are typically below the limit of detection in the effluent of the biological treatment system.

**•** Allen stated that the major improvement of the Allen biological treatment system over the Belews Creek system is the inclusion of ox idation

- reduction potential (ORP) and pH probes on each individual cell (the Belews Creek system has one ORP probe for each stage). Additionally, the Allen system has sampling points on the effluent from the second stage (Belews Creek has sampling points o n the effluent from the second stage recycle). These improvements have resulted in greater ease of operations for the biological treatment system at Allen.

**•** Allen stated that the effluent from the FGD wastewater treatment system is
transferred to the ash b asin. Allen stated that there are no permit limits for the FGD wastewater treatment system effluent (internal Outfall 005); however, Allen stated that they are required to monitor and report the following parameters for the internal outfall: Se, Hg, As, N i, Zn, Be, Ag, Cr, Cd, sulfates, chlorides, and pH. [Please provide monitoring data for the FGD wastewater treatment system, including FGD scrubber purge, effluent from chemical precipitation/influent to biological treatment, and effluent from biological treatment. Include all parameters that are being monitored. Additionally, please indicate the ferric chloride dosage rates at the time of monitoring (to identify when changes were made to the dosage).]

**•** Allen stated that they are sampling the effluent f rom the FGD wastewater treatment system on a weekly basis.

**•** The selenium limit from the ash basin effluent (Outfall 002) is 31 ppb. Allen expected the limit to be lowered to 21 ppb when the biological treatment system was designed.

**•** Allen stated that beca use the electric generating units are operated on a cycling basis and are not baseload units, there are times when the units have been shut down for a few days. During these shut down periods, the wastewater treatment system does not receive any scrubber purge wastewater and therefore, the plant has to find a way to feed the microbes to keep them alive. Allen stated the following regarding there operations during shut downs:

**•** If the plant knows ahead of time that they will be shut down for a couple days, they can build up additional scrubber purge in the equalization and maintenancePage 11

tanks and then operate the FGD wastewater treatment system at a reduced flow rate until they begin operating again.

**•** If the plant is down for several days without advanced knowl edge, the plant can run service water through the system and feed nutrients to the bioreactors to sustain biological growth.

**•** During pilot testing, the plant shut off the system for three weeks with the system sitting idle with water in it and when the syst em started operating again, it was achieving its typical performance after 24 hours.

**•** Allen stated that the biological treatment system is fully operational within 1

- 2 residence times after a complete shut down of the entire system. Additionally,
Allen sta ted that the biological species in the bioreactor cells will respond to variations in influent chemistry (i.e. return to steady state) within 1

- 2 residence
times.Page 12

Table 1. Site Visit Attendees

Name Organization (Representing) Telephone E

- mail

Rob ert Wylie Duke Energy (704) 382

- 4669 Robert.Wylie@duke

- energy.com

Kim Hamm Duke Energy Kimberly.Hamm@duke

- energy.com

Greg Ausberger Duke/ Allen Gregory.Augspurger@duke

- energy.com

Bill Kennedy Duke Energy William.Kennedy@duke

- energy.com

Robyn Jolly Du ke/Allen (704)829

- 2412 Robbin.Jolly@duke

- energy.com

Terry K. Hollifield Duke/Allen Terry.Hollifield@duke

- energy.com

Ted Manes Duke Energy Ted.Manes@duke

- energy.com

Steve Immel Duke/Allen Steve.Immel@duke

- energy.com

Don Scruggs Duke/Allen Don.Scrugg s@duke

- energy.com

Donna Hill UWAG/Southern Company (205) 257

- 5234 dbhill@southernco.com

Josh Hall EPA (202) 566

- 1002 hall.josh@epa.gov

Jezebele Alicea

Virella EPA (202) 566

- 1 755 Alicea.jezebele@epa.gov

Kurt Blohm ERG (Contractor to EPA) (703) 633

- 1675 kurtis.blohm@erg.com

TJ Finseth ERG (Contractor to EPA) (703) 633

- 1698 thomas.finseth@erg.com